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Julie Bindel gives the Spectator a withering account of having her invitation to speak at Durham rescinded.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

Certainly it's an attitude very much in evidence on MN.

Only in the more interesting moderation decisions.

MNetters may argue with you passionately, rudely, repeatedly, there may be a heavy proportion of people arguing against you, but they will argue. They may call you an idiot for holding those views but they won't block you, they won't delete your posts, they won't try to get HQ to remove your membership, they won't try to get you arrested.

Disagreement is not intolerance of an opinion or 'silencing'. The whole 'you won't let other opinions here' is bollocks, what the poster usually means is 'you won't agree with me'. 'Kindness' is becoming a catchall phrase for 'do what I want', and it's only ever expected to go one way. And those who whine most about kindness and mutual respect never enact or model what they are demanding others give to them.

Basic social contract between adults. As opposed to casting two groups: the children entitled to special care with no responsibilities or mutuality, and the adults expected to provide care and service and suck up the tantrums.

When I went to Durham just over a decade ago, the Debate Society were proud to defend freedom of speech. They invited Nick Griffin of the BNP to debate and roundly demolished his arguments. Afterwards it was agreed that platforming people with views you disagreed with was actually one of the best tools to show the weakness of their arguments.

Is ten years a generation? The students today certainly feel like a very different group than those who were there in 2008. What has changed in that time to go from willingness to debate the sodding BNP to no-platforming someone as comparatively mild as Julie Bindel? Unless they've lost confidence in the strength of their arguments.

I saw Julie speak a few hours ago at the WPUK conference.

It's hard to describe just how brilliant, wise, inspirational and funny she was, but it was unforgettable and I really hope that as many women as possible get to enjoy the unique of experience of seeing her speak.

BabDoc, Voltairecws paraphrased by one of his biographers as saying;

"I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

He didn't actually say it.

And truly, which of us would choose to die on the hill of defending the right of someone like Milo or Yaniv or even Farage to say their piece? I disagree with no-platforming but at the same time you can't platform everybody. People have a right to speak but not a right to be endlessly listened to by everybody!

Well, yes, but what that should mean is that they give a talk and nobody shows up. Not that they try to give a talk and the venue gets bomb threats, or they're invited to give a talk and then uninvited because someone complained.

Helen Saxby: Women are not just expected to be nice whilst fighting for our rights, we're expected to be nice instead of fighting for our rights.

Michelle, thank you, beautifully articulated.

I learn so much on here. There should be an anthology of FWR essays somewhere.

What Prodigal kitten said! ^^ And Bewilderness, too.

It's terrifying how quickly and easily decades of gained ground crumbles to a few loud, insistent, entitled, irrational male voices.

I’m not sure where I stand on ‘no-platforming is always bad’. Because I’d be ok with no-platforming Holocaust denial. Also I think over-platforming is a thing - giving validation to ideas by giving them space. For example we’d probably be further along now in dealing with climate change if the BBC and others hadn’t spent so long being balanced by including the climate denial viewpoint. And saturation coverage of Farage can be argued to have pre-dated and helped lead to the rise of UKIP. So I feel it’s about freedom of speech and responsibility in making choices... but does that just boil down to ‘if I agree then it’s ok’? It’s difficult!

And saturation coverage of Farage can be argued to have pre-dated and helped lead to the rise of UKIP

Er, can you link to the saturation coverage of Farage? Pre UKIP?

Also I think over-platforming is a thing - giving validation to ideas by giving them space

So instead of diversity of ideas and debate, there should be one monolithic view on all forums? Who gets to decide which view dominates?

When I was a politics undergrad, we had the nice young man from the South African Embassy in to explain to us that it was all cool and the blacks were cool with it and it was just a few agitators complaining about Apartheid which was being phased out anyway so not to worry.

We questioned him patiently and respectfully. I got him with a Botswana question. Then at the end we said thank you.

Leaving the lecture room, we walked to the lift. He joined us and pushed the button. He got in and smiled. We smiled back and didn't get in with him, watched his face as the door closed.

Yes I agree with pp. There was a controversy back in my day about the writer David Irving, who is a holocaust denier. I was torn on that one because I thought ok, what a dick, but also why not let him speak so we can actually hear the basis of his argument, so that we can thoroughly debunk him?

It was a banning books issue. I'd happily ban crap books like 50 Shades of Grey or whatever but no matter how much I disagree with an author, in truth I'd so much rather let daylight do it's job than bloody burn anything.

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

...and 'period poverty', as if no-one had ever encountered this before.

The view on David Irving from my lecturers was that he was wrong because Kershaw, Gilbert et al, but that Das Reich was still a good book.

I'm prepared to see vile voices with a platform, and I don't require them to be debated by some poor sod having to wrestle nonsense, but I would like them to be required to take questions from the audience. Proper questioning as at a scientific conference.

I do worry that having these people speaking genuinely causes a surge in harassment. I'm seeing some horrible stories this morning about racist and nationalist incidents post Brexit day. I actually think what Trans Oxford (name?) did on the day of the WPUK meeting there was good. They stayed away from the WPUK venue, apart possibly from the person who came to ask a question at the meeting, but had an inclusion protest of their own elsewhere, which trans people who disagree with WPUK found was affirming and supportive.

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

Funnily enough......I've been thinking about this quite a bit recently. If, as children, you are out ofthe house playing for much of the time; and exploring...often quite some distance from home - at an early age; you, surely, have to learn a degree of self sufficiency and independence.

Along with the rise of technology and computers young people have become so closeted, as well as in need of perpetual outside stimulation.

As a teacher I saw how education had become about 'entertaining' the class - with slick on-line presentations and clever effects.......little use of solo study.....all group work.......So different to when I was at at school.

...and teachers do so much more for the pupils now than they ever did.......endless re-drafting of essays and coursework - with high levels of teacher input. gone are the days when the teacher sat at their desk marking, while the class got on with their work.

I'm often up around the university where I live.....and I see young people leaving their lecture and walking along the street; crossing the road and arriving at their end destination without ever looking up from their screen. They often have ear phones on too; completely oblivious to the world around them; to the people, the traffic, the sights and sounds......

I think your entire post speaks to the fact that you’re not remotely in favour of free speech, KizzyWayfarer.

I'm seeing some horrible stories this morning about racist and nationalist incidents post Brexit day.
And maybe, people if people had been allowed to tell their stories and voice their concerns at the time without being labelled stupid and bigoted (remember Gillian Duffy?) then the issues could have been properly discussed and debated, and maybe - just maybe though of course we will never know - it might never have come to Brexit?

Sorry - too many 'peoples'.

Anyone else watch the Netflix series ‘Pandemic’? I thought they handled a platforming issue well wrt the anti-vax movement. The anti vaccination mother was given a platform and allowed to say her piece. This was juxtaposed with scientists, lawmakers and parents of immuno-compromised children who held a different view. Factual inaccuracies were challenged and the viewer was left to make up their own mind.

I think there’s a distinction to be drawn between debating opinions that are clearly emotion-driven beliefs, and allowing them to be heard. I don’t have a problem with Richard Dawkins, for example, refusing to debate creationists as it’s a pointless exercise - they won’t change their mind, they’re operating on the faith plane rather than trying to arrive at truth. I haven’t heard him demanding creationists be silenced to avoid giving their views ‘validity’.

BovaryX
The overplatforming of Farage was problematic and I think contributed to his persona of "I'm a normal bloke who likes a pint... I'm anti establishment".

He was always in TV news panel shows like Have I Got News For You and was on political shows substantially more than party leaders who had greater representation in parliament and European parliament.

Most university lecturers are Marxists. The result of years of Communist indoctrination is that a campus is like a microcosm of the Communist Party where anyone not parroting the Party line is subject to censorship and punishment. People who have lived through these dictatorships are simply amazed that any democracy would want to impose this on a supposedly free society.

“ Most university lecturers are Marxists. ”

Are they?