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?

i dread to think what warnings could have been added to my art and war module

What kind of trigger warnings is one supposed to put on, for example, a social work degree? Or the safeguarding module in any degree? Warning: by definition this whole area may be upsetting because dealing with stuff that's not all flowers and unicorns is the whole thing about safeguarding?

CalamiouslyWrong You are ignoring the image of a single horn there. Clearly a sign of the Patriarchy. As for anyone who's been kicked by a horse at some point...

Well yes.

And, of course, myths and fairy takes are often quite dark. Those unicorns definitely need multiple trigger warnings.

I'm really late to this thread I know, so feel free to ignore, but I was wondering whether anyone had heard about this story and what you thought of it? I'm quite torn - on the one hand I don't think the debate should have been cancelled, as I don't think the people who wanted to attend should have been prevented from doing so, and if people wanted to complain about the two participants being men it would have been better to go there and raise the point rather than preventing them from speaking at all. On the other, I don't know if it's a 'free speech' issue as such, given that institutions have the right to decide who to host at their own events (it's not like they were trying to force a change in legislation or anything).

My own university's feminist society agreed with the ban, incidentally.

No, I don't agree with the event being cancelled.

It has similarities to the Goldsmiths' case that some very weak excuse is being given around the impossibility of hosting controversial events... not having enough time, resources etc to deal with it. Perhaps universities need to make sure they have the resources and expertise in place to deal with both free speech and the right to protest at the same time.

It does seem an extraordinarily silly motion. Indeed asking what is "abortion culture" is a valid and sensible response.

And it's disingenuous of him to say it has no bearing on, and wasn't about , abortion rights. He is starting from the viewpoint that a legal act is inherently harmful to society at large. Compare the Scottish government's concern over binge drinking culture , a legal activity which harms and affects us all , and which concern has led to happy hours being banned.

Was he proposing that having established it was harmful that should be end of the matter? He would not turn it into an anti abortion debate?

I doubt Brendan O'Neill would have been the voice of reason so the whole debate looks as if it was contrariness just for the sake of contrariness.

The objectors however should not have been allowed to stop it. They could have attended and contributed although given the tenor of the quotes he selected I suspect they would have come out of it badly.

The Oxford debacle demonstrated two aspects of debate I'm unhappy about. I do think the organisers failed in not having a woman speaker on an abortion debate. I agree with Still that the motion clearly has an underlying assumption that abortion is a bad thing and if you were to agree with the motion, where would you go from there? Presumably the solution would be to reduce the bad thing. Having two men debate this topic on a theoretical level without any understanding of the impact on women (as he clearly did not) doesn't sit well with me.

However, my solution to that would be not to go because i don't think I would get anything of value from it. If I was anyone they might care about (e.g. the FemSoc maybe) I would have written to say I wouldn't attend as the motion is fundamentally flawed and the debaters are unlikely to be able to deal with the issue comprehensively. I certainly don't agree with allowing the objectors to stop it going ahead.

I doubt Brendan O'Neill would have been the voice of reason

Indeed he wasn't - his perspective is here (I actually agree with several of his points but think the way he's expressed them is melodramatic and stupid).

As I said, I think as institutions universities technically should retain the right to ban whoever they like from speaking. And while it probably wouldn't have occurred to me to protest this debate because the participants are male, I can certainly see why the 'abortion culture' title is problematic. But I still don't think this is the right way to go about changing things. Interesting to see that other people here agree, as those in favour of no-platforming and trigger warnings on everything are overwhelmingly in the majority an my university's FemSoc (and in most others, as far as I can see), and I assumed the trend was common to feminism as a whole.

intrinsic it's a controversial point within feminism. See the thread on Mary Beard regarding the open letter to the Guardian.

The debate was organised by the Oxford society for life, which is absolutely an anti-abortion group so I think the intended audience were starting from the premise that abortion us a bad thing.

And I do think the Oxford society for life should be able to have its very badly formulated debate.