Cambridge University LGBTQI+ students: we are not attempting to silence free speech, we just want to deplatform Helen Joyce

Why should certain topics be off limits? Surely it's only through presentation of evidence and subsequent discussion that we can come to have a better understanding of the world we live in? And what if the available evidence shows there are difference (on average) between groups? Why is that necessarily a bad thing?

The most memorable lecture I ever attended at uni was a psychology Professor's talk on sex differences in performance on various cognitive tasks. In a number of the presented studies, the average for males' performance was better than the average performance for females.

As a woman, I didn't come away from the lecture feeling oppressed, unsafe or maligned by the university, instead I found the studies very interesting. The lecture raised all kinds of questions about who decides what IQ consists of? Why are certain tasks (that males perform well in) privileged over tasks that females perform well in? Who demarcates what "cognitive skills" encompass? What can we infer from performance on IQ tests in relation to life outcomes etc. It was also the only lecture I ever attended that got a standing ovation for the lecturer.

I don't understand why students today are so close minded and illiberal. They have far more access to information through the internet then people my age who had to consult a limited number of paper journals in brick libraries. With all the information at their fingertips why aren't they more open to learning as much as they can about the world around them? It seems to me that universities nowadays are more like religious seminaries preaching to devout students who won't entertain anything that challenges their life outlook.

Functionally you are absolutely saying people should be banned from speaking.

If there is an interest in a topic like race and IQ, if there are scholars looking at this kind of question, who think it is important, by definition it's not marginal. That is how the university works, and the public discourse more generally. If people are talking about it, it is in some sense important.

In your system, who would be the people who get to decide what is too niche, too silly? What would be the process to determine that? Who would decide where the lines are, or whether drawing those lines might have unexpected consequences in other areas?

The only workable option, the only transparent option, is through open public discourse. Otherwise you are talking about some kind of closed group who are making these kinds of decisions about what is important and what people can legitimately talk about. By what processes? Who knows. On what authority? Their own. With what special knowledge?

There is no system that guarantees that all people will only believe the right things. Which may seem like an excuse to limit what others can see right up until you realize there is no guarantee you will only believe the right things.

The same happens when Stonewall and Mermaids have to give evidence in court.

All bigots struggle when they have to justify their ideology.

I agree, on the whole. I don’t want to see any topics “banned”.

If you ban discussions including Holocaust denial then you also ban rebuttal of those denials. If you ban topics from discussion then you get the exact same "Why are they afraid to hear us speak - are they afraid that their attempts at rebuttal won't work, because they have no logic/argument/truth/foundation?" that we point out when trans ideologues refuse to let gender critical topics be discussed.

Don't you just get sick of cowardly little scroates, sending bitchy secret messeges behind womens backs trying to silence them from talking about their rights and the importance of maintaining safeguarding for women and cnildren. The pompous vainglorious ignorance of them. Proudly insisting on endangering a woman campaigning to protect women and children from harm.

Utter disgraceful ignorant scumbags

Yes, I guess I am soul searching a bit - just thought it was an interesting question as people I know in real life are much less committed to an extreme position on freedom of speech. I don’t know where the line should be drawn, hence raising the question!

And pondering a bit more- I don’t even think it’s a question of “a line”. I think the line for a publicly funded institution would be completely different compared with, I don’t know, a privately hosted event. For the latter I don’t think I’d want to see any lines drawn at all (I suppose with the exception of actual direct incitement to violence).

No, not at all! I said very clearly I support Helen Joyce and that I’m talking about issues like racial intelligence differences and Holocaust denial

choosing to organise an institutional event on a particular issue suggests that the issue is important, prominent, relevant, legitimate and so on,

Are you suggesting that this is not?

you're doing all the soul searching here - you explain where the line should be drawn? (if one should be drawn at all)

And I do agree that all topics should be up for debate. And probably all speakers too - I supported Gaddafi being able to speak, and even Nick Griffin back in the day (yes, I am old!). But that doesn’t mean a publicly-funded institution should organise public-facing events on all topics, surely.

I strongly disagree (and you’ve cut my post to change my meaning slightly). In a world where a university cannot hold an event on every single issue, choosing to organise an institutional event on a particular issue suggests that the issue is important, prominent, relevant, legitimate and so on, rather than niche, silly, pointless, irrelevant or illegitimate.

In this context, not choosing a particular topic for an event is very different from banning a particular speaker!

I understand. When I was teaching I had a lot of trouble from students. But I always kept to a free speech line - not sharing my opinions one way or another, always giving both sides. Students respect that. The ones who wanted to take me down were ideologues who would have come after me no matter what. If you're a middle aged woman, you're a target.

Is the Gonville talk open to the public?

All topics should be up for debate. Slander and ad hominem diatribes are not 'debate'.

These kids have no idea what it means to be in danger as a result of someone giving a speech.

As Jewish student at university in the 80s, I had very mixed feelings about the SU's "No platform for racists" stance. In theory it allowed anti-Israel Arab speakers, but in practice it was very difficult for them to speak because it banned organisations such as the PLO and Hezbollah.

But if you disbelieve the legitimacy of Israel, you should have the right to say so. And if you are spreading anti-Semitic tropes, then the Jews should have the right to argue against that - which they cannot do if your speech is silenced.

But the anti-Israel speakers would say things like "Push the Jews into the sea" and claim that Jews living outside Israel were responsible for what Israel did, and were too cowardly to go and live there, so the more Jews were attacked the more likely they were to put pressure on Israel to give way.

Physical attacks on Jewish students increased after these sorts of speeches, as well name-calling, and vandalising their belongings and local Jewish-owned shops. So we were genuinely unsafe after such people were given platforms.

Nobody, nobody, is calling for people with trans identities to be harmed.

I’m not saying anyone should be banned from speaking on anything. I’m saying I don’t think some topics should be chosen to be debated

Weasel words

No, but it’s more insidious than that. My job relies on being able to build connections with students and I don’t want to be blacklisted by them as a supporter of wrongthink. Ugh.

I understand the fear, but I hope you go. What can they do? You were interested and you went to a talk to find out more - no sane, reasonable person could have a problem with that.

I really want to go to this but I work for the university and am genuinely nervous of the potential impact on my career. Yes, of being seen attending a legal public talk by a published author with views I wholeheartedly agree with. It’s utterly ridiculous that it feels like something I have to risk assess.

That would explain their belief that the law says it is legal to hold GC beliefs, but not to actually express them, I suppose.

Virtue signalling. Deplatforming is the suppression of free speech and is especially heinous in a university context where all ideas should be expressible and open to debate. The Inquisition deplatformed Galileo.

I don't wanna start a new thread so while this isn't strictly the right place, I just saw this Tik Tok video of a walk out protest at Portland state university where they were discussing the differences between the sexes.

vm.tiktok.com/ZMFrNDoyK/

It's hilarious as the protestors look so ridiculous and the speakers are acting like adults. What a bizarre world we are living in.

We have to discuss difficult topics and analyse what’s really going on. The race and IQ one is a great example. There are some really robust arguments explaining why any discrepancy in IQ results is not based on race as a biological entity. There is more to fear from refusing to debate.

This is not an attempt to silence free speech [...] It is for these reasons that we implore Gonville and Caius to reconsider their decision to platform Joyce.

-No wonder they have trouble with logic and reality...

Perhaps they are in favour of free speech as long as you do it on your own in a soundproof room.