Julie Bindel no platformed at Durham University

[BovaryX]

Julie Bindel gives the Spectator a withering account of having her invitation to speak at Durham rescinded. Serious debate and freedom of speech are being severely hampered in the very institutions which should promote and protect both. Her account of this contains some hilariously robust language. Her conclusion about the upshot of these policies resonates...

Phoenix had recently been speaking out about being de-platformed by Essex University for the simple reason that she is appalled at the anti-intellectual and anti-academic ethos within universities, as well as the rise of academic populism. I have no idea whether she will still attend the Durham debate, but I do know one thing: Treating invited speakers like dangerous retrogrades – in particular those who give their time to encourage critical thinking amongst the student population – will result in graduates with narrow, closed minds and no ability to form opinions of their own

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/how-i-was-de-platformed-by-durham-university/

Thanks, she's right.

And, having seen the woefully woke male student from City this week talking over Prof Kathleen Stock on the subject of freedom of speech, and talking about kindness instead of critical thought, then we have every reason to agree with Julie.

Amazed that people who are into de-platforming don't ask themselves 'who would I least like to have to tell that I've disinvited them?' Anyond fancy ringing Julie Bindel and telling her 'we think you're a bigot'?

Admittedly this time they seem to have tried not to tell JB at all. Good strategy from a fear point of view but pretty pathetic otherwise.

She is right. I work in HE & unfortunately critical thinking seems to be lacking in a lot of our senior management too.
Did lol at her description of ‘blue haired bellends’ though

'I am one of those lunatic, fringe feminists that do not think it is possible for a woman to have a penis, or a man to give birth to a baby.'

Thinking this might work on a T-shirt.

To think people used to go to university to broaden their horizons and explore a range of opinions, views and experiences that are different to their own.
Now a bunch of social media obsessed woke snowflakes are simultaneously certain of their own righteousness whilst equally threatened by any view that isn't theirs. It seems that people get no platformed on so many issues.

To think 5/10years ago Durham University challenged the NUS's no platforming policy and even withdrew it's affiliation with the NUS (though they've since rejoined).

The Woke/Stonewall/MRA combined campaign to entirely stop women speaking aloud about anything that doesn't centre men is working, isn't it?

Back in my day the only no platform was for racists and even then - rightly imho- this would be debated as in "why not give them a platform so we can take their arguments down."
I despair at all of this. How will this generation cope outside of university?

Thinking this might work on a T-shirt

There are a couple of memorable phrases in that article....

how will this generation cope outside of university

Sadly, the existential threat to freedom of speech extends beyond academia. I am struggling to understand how Voltaire's defense of freedom of speech has been tossed overboard so rapidly. This is the post Enlightenment. How will these people conduct a rational, coherent discussion about anything when their only form of argument is unsubstantiated accusations of bigotry and ad hominems, rapidly followed by denunciations and demands to permanently silence? These zealots think #no debate is something to chant with pride.....

GrimDamnFanjo
Same here.

The consensus seemed to be that even if you disagree with someone else it's still important to let them speak and have their ideas challenged/debated openly.
Now it feels like so many people take the approach "you can have any opinion you like and we welcome many views, as long as they are included in our list of acceptable correct opinions. If your view isn't on our list then you're a bigot so not only do I want to be angry about your opinion, I think that nobody else should be exposed to your opinion because I haven't the intellect to debate with maturity and there's a part of me that is so scared someone else might see any value in your view that they might question the established view that I am right so that's dangerous".

Rather like "Play It Again Sam," Voltaire never actually said it.

I really do wish all this no platforming would stop. It's not helpful with the possible exception of giving JB a free run to talk about being no platformed in the forthcoming weekend press. I suspect many trans people getting on with their daily lives, going to work, looking after family and generally doing to stuff everybody else does don't want her to be no platformed either. If someone has a problem with what she says then surely a counter argument would serve them far better?

Now it feels like so many people take the approach "you can have any opinion you like and we welcome many views, as long as they are included in our list of acceptable correct opinions. If your view isn't on our list then you're a bigot so not only do I want to be angry about your opinion, I think that nobody else should be exposed to your opinion because I haven't the intellect to debate with maturity and there's a part of me that is so scared someone else might see any value in your view that they might question the established view that I am right so that's dangerous"

Doesn't everybody do this this though? Certainly it's an attitude very much in evidence on MN. I am guilty of getting angry during debates myself.

I think it's a question of degrees. What has happened is the measure of acceptable lassitude or tolerance for ideas that deviate from the median seems to have narrowed, whilst the scope of what was previously unacceptable in behavioural and social terms seems to have widened. IKSWIM? (not well, so ideas aren't articulating well today)

We are far more accepting of previously non-tolerated behaviours or lifestyles.

Whilst paradoxically becoming more intolerant of what was previously accepted speech and ideas.

I find this interesting. It suggests freedom of speech and freedom of being? behaviour? are diametrically opposed and can't coexist in equal measure at the same time.

So the trans agenda has the spin-off appeal of closing down informed abolitionist arguments. They always fall on the side of sex work is work, don't they? Even though, in theory, these are two totally different areas of life.

Doesn't everybody do this this though? Certainly it's an attitude very much in evidence on MN. I am guilty of getting angry during debates myself.
Many people get angry/passionate and that's not a problem. As I say, it's a problem when it becomes "I am angry about your view and because I'm angry I want to prevent anyone else hearing your view".

It's a contradictory stance to hold. On the one hand some people are convinced they are right, they have the truth, their views are morally superior, they are on the right side of history, they have complete certainty in their beliefs, but then on the other hand they seem to be terrified of alternative views, don't want to engage in reasoned debate so stick to mud slinging and crying bigot, no platform speakers so that alternative ideas can't be heard and discussed and critiqued.

When I've encountered people like this (regardless of the topic) I always leave thinking that to be so strongly against plurality of ideas and reasonable, healthy debate someone must either lack the capacity for intelligent debate, or they know intelligent debate would lead their core views to be critiqued/might show other views are valid too and that's too threatening to their need to be right.

Back in my day the only no platform was for racists

I think this is where it started, though.

I think this is where it started, though.

I think this is an example of why accepting bad ideas (no platforming) on the assumption that they will only apply to people who you think deserve it is in itself a bad idea. When no platforming began I felt uncomfortable with it because I could see how easily the same mechanism could be used to shut down opinions that I agree with, or indeed potentially any perspective, and it seems that I was correct.

Bad ideas should be engaged with and counterarguments made. That's a big part of what universities are for. In this case I think Bindel is 100% correct, but even if she wasn't preventing her from speaking would be a bad idea and rather worrying in terms of what it says about freedom of speech in general.

It certainly seems that freedom of speech can no longer be taken for granted. I was born in the 1950’s, and while still at primary school remember being taught about democracy - we were told that anybody could stand on a soapbox at Speaker’s Corner and make a speech about any issue they wanted. It was emphasised that we were a free society, and this right was a precious part of democracy, and one of the things we fought to defend in WW2.
Sadly, the current woke snowflake generation seem to have become intolerant bigots of any opinions that conflict with their own.
I’m really concerned about the future for my DC - we seem to be heading for a totalitarian state, where the police already turn up to accuse people of “thought crime”. This will not end well, unless resisted strenuously.

I’m really concerned about the future for my DC - we seem to be heading for a totalitarian state, where the police already turn up to accuse people of “thought crime”. This will not end well, unless resisted strenuously

How do you resist though, when your voices are removed one by one? Terrifying.

I'm concerned too Babdoc - even at primary age, Im trying to teach my DS to think around & beyond what they're being told, question why and reach their own conclusions. I feel I'm setting them up for trouble. Or more likely myself.

CatherineOfAragonsPomegranate

What does "IKSWIM" mean?

It was meant to be IFYSWIM

Basically: If you see what I mean.

I'm on pain meds today and slightly off.

I think this is an example of why accepting bad ideas (no platforming) on the assumption that they will only apply to people who you think deserve it is in itself a bad idea.

Yup.

I really had to hold my tongue (finger?) the other day when my friend posted a meme on FB along the lines of "Deplatforming works! Join us in denying such and such a person a venue for her wrong ideas".

But there is zero consciousness what that could mean in the future, or what it would have meant if people had regularly done it 50 years ago. Things could look a lot different now if mainstream thinking wasn't allowed to be challenged.

Something I've noticed though, the examples people use have changed. I always heard similar stories to yours about the wonders of democracy. But when I talk to younger people now, often what they reference are things like bussing kids to schools to desegregate, or sit ins in restaurants that would not serve blacks. I'm not sure what that means or why its happened.

True Mockers But Voltaire did offer this interesting insight in an age of absolutism:

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd

The new totalitarians and their simplistic, Manichean certainties, their penchant for demonising anyone who questions these certainties? They do not believe in freedom of speech, they do not believe in debate, they believe in silence and submission. I wonder what Voltaire would make of them?

Isn’t there a famous quote somewhere along the lines of “I despise everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” ?
I think that is the only decent democratic position to take on freedom of speech.

how will this generation cope outside of university?

or as Glinner put it, 'The first generation not allowed to play outside.'