Academics - WTF is going on?

[FloraFox]

www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/feb/02/goldsmiths-comedian-kate-smurthwaite-free-speech-show-feminist-campaigners

What fresh hell is this? Members of the feminist society at Goldsmith threatened to picket this feminist comedian because they disagree with her views in prostitution. So the SU cancelled the show.

See also the article that's linked about universities going mad banning things.

What's going on?

it was the comedian they were saying was breaching the (mental) safe space through their interpretation/disagreement with her views

they were planning to picket about the potential breach of the safe space. the picket itself was not a breach of the safe space

buffy did you see this article that was linked in the first one?

www.theguardian.com/education/2015/feb/02/free-speech-universities-spiked-ban-sombreros

Do you recognise the suggestion that students are being treated as vulnerable?

I remember some people trying to ban coke and/or Pepsi from campus and that was ages ago. The bans then (including no platforming facists, which I didn't agree with) were not about vulnerable students but an act of political strength. I still didn't agree with them.

The behaviour of various femsocs looks like good old fashioned infighting. Is the "safe space" rationale genuine and, if so, why is it needed? Or is it just a smokescreen for sectarianism?

iirc the SU is usually run by students (paid or voluntary), or graduates in their first 1-2 years post university, so would often be viewed as part of the student community i think

Ah DWH, you only read one of the links then.... SHOCK!

The three quotes I reposted came from the guardian link, the cruella link and the student union link.

That's bloody outrageous. The potential pickets clearly don't believe in free speech.

We're back again to 'what do we mean by democracy?' and 'what do we mean by free speech?' This idea that you shouldn't have listen to something you find 'offensive' and that nobody else should be allowed to listen to someone you once found 'offensive' is a damn good way of closing public debate about contentious issues. Not exactly great for the future of democracy.

DWH the reason for the pickets and protesting was fear that she might breach the safe space policy. My response above was to schoolclosed who said: "Hence worrying that a feminist lefty comedian might breach their safe space policy."

In the quotes you've selected above, the first and third refer to risk of protest and picketing and don't refer to safe space. The second quote:

"Then I was asked if I had picket lines outside gigs before. I said no. Then I was told it was due to a likelihood of a breach of Goldsmiths’ ‘safe space policy’."

it's clear the picketing was due to the likelihood of a breach of the safe space policy i.e. there was a perceived likelihood of Kate Smurthwaite breaching the safe space and therefore a picket was organised to protest.

Safe space is not about security or risk of physical hazard.

Dadwashere, there are two issues the university was discussing - security and safe spaces. Safe spaces is part of equal opps and refers to mental safe space. That is the standard meaning of safe space and is lots of policy guidelines, including Goldsmiths.

Ahhh, thank you almond, NOW I get it, you have a very different definition of safe space. So, let me see if I get this right, they planned a physical picket to protest 'safe space' issues and by doing so created a security issue that the performer warned the university of. But the performer was subsequently told it was NOT a security issue that killed her show but (effectively) its content. Then the student body issued a statement that security concerns caused the cancellation. Is that accurate?

you have a very different definition of safe space

I think you'll find that this is a common definition for the specific term "safe space".

It saddens me that my university has effectively no-platformed a woman on the basis of a difference of opinion. FFS.

She has all the messages she was sent up on her blog. She was told on the first of February at 5.45 pm... 'I have to send you a passage about our safe space policy outlining kinda what you can or can't say.'

AT 19.19 she was told it was being cancelled both because of security around the picket and because of the repercussions for the comedy society over what she might say.

At 19.21 she was told it was because there might be a breach of the safe spaces policy.

At 19.24 she was told it was because there were complaints.

At 20.27 she was told there were five complaints about her.

It isn't a different definition of safe space. Any university will have to have security policies in place regardless of whether or not equal ops reps have created a safe space policy.

For example, if too many people were let into an event and could be injured as a consequence, that is a security issue. It isn't covered by a safe spaces policy which is about speech, images etc.

I do feel sorry for the person who made the decision, who is almost certainly an unpaid student fitting in running a small comedy society around their studies.

If they could potentially get into trouble with legal issues or the university's regulations, they are going to err on the side of caution. There should be somebody at the university who has a qualification in and a post in equality and diversity. The student could then have asked them and been in the clear over any alleged wrongdoing.

They had something big to lose. They would have been held accountable. The comedian does still have freedom of speech to perform elsewhere, and has performed the show in the past.

I do not think it is of the same level as the rad fem conference stuff where there is a campaign to stop them speaking anywhere ever.

Buffy thanks, that's interesting.

This is part of why I find the concept of "free speech" to be not particularly useful. No-one really believes in free speech as an unfettered concept. I think it's more helpful to talk about types of speech and how they can cause individual and class harms and whether we believe they should be restricted either altogether or in particular contexts.

I don't believe students should be treated as consumers. There may be some benefits in giving students a better voice within institutions however that could be achieved without consumerising the student experience. I dislike the trend of treating people like consumers in every context, I think it dehumanises and desocialises many experiences that should not be treated as commercial. It has a knock-on effect of people viewing every human interaction as a transaction.

I am definitely in favour of restrictions on misogynist speech or speech that enforces male, racial, class etc. dominance. Not because it is offensive, although it is, but because it reinforces existing power structures. The safe space issue though it going further than I think is desirable.

ps Buffy I think the ticket sales was a smoke screen. It wasn't a ticketed even except for non-SU members and was intended for SU members to pay on the day.

I think it is extremely rude to use ticket sales as an excuse. Rubbing salt in the wound.

while i don't disagree with you, you don't really get much choice about the treating students as consumers thing. when they are taking on upwards of £30k debt, they will behave like consumers

So let me see

Students protest over lads mags and we are all about the rights of the students to be protected over free speech.

Sale of the Sun banned because of page 3 so we are all about the rights of the students to be protected from images over free speech,

Smurfwhaite gets told she is not wanted by some students and they are against free speech and this is wrong.

I got that right? Personally I still love the 8 tickets sold and the usual main party of her audience outside protesting, that makes a beautiful image.

I do not think it is of the same level as the rad fem conference stuff where there is a campaign to stop them speaking anywhere ever.

I agree with this and it's ironic that Kate S. performed at RTN and criticised RFs handing out leaflets. However it's also fairly clear that the concern was not really about what she would say in the show, which has previously been performed elsewhere. The concern was over comments she had made in the past about prostitution. The LSEFS were on twitter drumming up protests from the Goldsmiths FemSoc over past comments. That's consistent with this approach of preventing people speaking about anything and preventing them speaking at other locations.

It will be interesting to see how this will affect KS's approach on rad fem no-platforming. Other non-RFs have changed their approach when the ire is directed to them or someone close to them.

sausage your post is exactly why I think it's not helpful to talk about "free speech". Some people seem unable to distinguish between different types of speech. Thanks for making my point.

yy buffy, but it's the perception isn't it. i've had parents ringing up demanding to know things about their son or daughter's progress, because from their POV they are paying and have a right to know. erm, no, that's not how it works