Eton sacks teacher for lecture on 'current radical feminist orthodoxy'

[stumbledin]

I cant make any sense of this story as reported in the Daily Mail, and the version in the Telegraph is behind a paywall.

Quote from DM:

The class was for older students taking the Perspectives module, where they are told to critique topics of public debate.

Eton has been accused of 'prioritising emotional safety over intellectual challenge' after banning the lesson.

'The head master felt that some of the ideas put forward in my lecture – such as the view that men and women differ psychologically and not all of those differences are socially constructed – were too dangerous for the boys to be exposed to.

'I explained to the head master that I wasn't endorsing all the ideas in my lecture, but I wanted the boys to be made aware of a different point of view to the current radical feminist orthodoxy, which insists that there's something fundamentally toxic about masculinity.

'In my lecture, I pointed out that, historically, masculine qualities like strength, courage and tenacity have often been as beneficial to women as they have been to men.'

.
Anyhow, there are so many elements to this, posh school, cant they manage a debate, but then it turns out it isn't a debate but a man saying women (feminists) are being unfair to men.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8991981/Eton-College-SACKS-English-master-producing-lecture-questioned-radical-feminist-orthodoxy.html

The link to the Telegraph article is in the DM one, and today they are saying local MP is urging Eton not to let woke outsiders influence them.

@queenofknives

You can't argue for free speech only for the views you're not personally offended by. Well you can, but it makes you a hypocrite.

So are you saying people should be able to say whatever they like and there should be no consequences whatsoever? Including racist, homophobic or misogynistic stuff? That a school should never be allowed to restrict what their staff put out in public with the school’s name associated with it?

For the last time, he was not fired because of what he thought. He was fired because he repeatedly breached a request by his employer. His video was found to breach laws that the school has an explicit duty to uphold. He refused to remove it despite the many opportunities he was given to do so. As he had been warned he would, he was then fired. That is not a breach of free speech. He’s perfectly entitled to hold his views but he just can’t expect to continue working for Eton College if he can’t follow the rules.

Jesus fucking Christ.

I also remember when the eton handbook leaked a few years ago, and it revealed the boys had classes on how to prepare to being a good husband and how to find a wife. That doesn’t sound too bad until you realise that these boys aren’t interacting either any girls, so it all felt rather like a big game hunt

Weebisom I think classes at Eton on how to find a wife are extremely unlikely. I asked my son who left in 2011 and he stared at me incredulously. Please could you tell me more about these lessons, I’d be very interested.

RealityNotEssentialism

Who defines racist, homophobic or misogynistic stuff, and how do they define it.

Rather than banning "hate" there is a lot more mileage in critical argument or in some opinions becoming socially unacceptable.

Free speech needs to include unpopular opinions, probably anything short of incitement. And people need to be prepared to rebut things that are unacceptable.

For example, does anyone really listen to Katy Hopkins any more.

As it is now, and according the student DD, it is not possible to speak up against a raft of stuff including TWIW, but also some quite sensitive things around different religious requirements (the example was whether it was possible for students to organise a Christmas drink when de facto this would exclude Muslim students), without being labelled "hateful". Too many of us know to be careful and not let personal opinions show, whether on Brexit, Scottish Independence or whatever. It is so dividing and is not the way to nourish a supportive united society.

@Needmoresleep the school took legal advice and were told that it breaches the Equality Act. So I guess here the law defines it. The school is bound by the EA and this guy had a YouTube channel stating he works for Eton. They can’t just let him keep videos up if it means it puts them in breach of the EA.

I am free to have a social media account where I show pictures of myself in states of undress. That’s also covered by freedom of expression. However if I work for a school I would be asked to take it down and presumably lose my job if I refuse. Are you really not able to see the difference?

If you fail to do what your employer asks of you, you are in breach of your employment contract and you may lose your job. It’s not that hard to grasp.

For example, does anyone really listen to Katy Hopkins any more.

If Katy Hopkins was a school teacher, would you think it was okay for her to put out material calling migrants cockroaches and talking about ‘Londonistan’? Because all speech is free, right? Or would you expect the school to take some disciplinary action?

a) there is plenty of evidence that some interpretations of the EA are problematic. I have even seen media suggestions (ie papers with access to good lawyers) that Eton have got this wrong.

b) I don't get this argument. Katy Hopkins is not a school teacher. If she was she almost certainly would not last long.

The teacher in question seemed to be trying to provoke debate in a well meaning, if cack handed way. I hear from a senior public sector recruiter that there is often a major problem with young (and not so yound) people's ability to take in information and be able to analyse critically and to be able to defend their opinions. This is the point of education. Not to indoctrinate children.

@Needmoresleep rubbish. They sought legal advice from an expert in equality law. The fact that the DM have suggested Eton were wrong based on the word of this guy is neither here nor there. They haven’t sought specific legal advice on the video. Anyway, the point is that he disobeyed his employer’s instructions which has repercussions.

Way to totally miss the point with KH. I’m not saying she’s a teacher. I’m saying do you think a teacher expressing the same views as KH does should be able to freely do so?

He may well have been trying to spark debate. He was then told on six occasions that it was inappropriate but totally ignored that. What does he expect?

People seem to be really struggling with the concept of an individual exercising their freedom of speech in their own name and a person sharing controversial views under the name of a company or establishment. I think that would be a sackable offense with most employers.
A teacher teaching such views to school children goes a few steps beyond freedom of speech. I can't imagine any school allowing that.

I believe free speech is about 'tolerating' views that may well clash with your own. A tolerant society is what a western democracy should be. A tolerant society doesn't call speech 'hate speech' when it clearly isn't. Some views are abhorrent to me, for example someone feeling they can re-define my language but neither my views, nor theirs are going to end civilisation.

Tolerance is a really good word. It needs to be used more often.

@highgame I absolutely agree with you. If Joe Blow decided to make a YouTube video sharing his view that black people are intellectually inferior to white people thats fair enough and people have a right to disagree with him. If Oxford University make a YouTube video sharing the same views thats an entirely different situation and will have serious implications for the University.

Does that make sense to you?

@DrDavidBanner

People seem to be really struggling with the concept of an individual exercising their freedom of speech in their own name and a person sharing controversial views under the name of a company or establishment. I think that would be a sackable offense with most employers. A teacher teaching such views to school children goes a few steps beyond freedom of speech. I can't imagine any school allowing that.

Yes, imagine a teacher stating an abhorrent view like: there are only two biological sexes, or, it's okay to be attracted to people of the same sex.

Sorry but you absolutely cannot have it both ways. Some people find those views abhorrent (or at least highly controversial) and use EXACTLY the arguments people are using on this thread to try to shut them down. Freedom of speech depends on us all being allowed to express our views, no matter what they are, and then we can argue against the ones we think are wrong, as we have done successfully with issues such as racism, gay marriage, and many more. You don't win arguments by shutting down the opposition - surely FWR posters should realise that. Banning ideas you don't like just leads to tyranny.

The ideas aren’t banned @queenofknives. It’s just that he can’t work at Eton, as he breached his employment contract by refusing to take the video down when told.

Freedom of speech depends on us all being allowed to express our views, no matter what they are, and then we can argue against the ones we think are wrong, as we have done successfully with issues such as racism, gay marriage, and many more.

Not when your employment contract states that you must not bring the profession or employer into disrepute. Then I’m afraid it’s a choice between the job and publicly stating the views if that’s what your employer says. He obviously chose the video over the job.

Teachers often hold pretty strong views but we absolutely can't share them.

I couldn't promote a No vote during the Scottish referendum or a remain vote during Brexit. You can't campaign for political parties or explicitly criticise or espouse certain policies.

Some do. And they get away with it.

I am very anti capital punishment and get away with it because my views don't affect my colleagues, pupils or the outcome of an election.

I can't see why anyone could support this guy. They are vulnerable children. Being wealthy and posh doesn't make them less vulnerable. In fact, they are away from home which makes them more so.

And, debate involves 2 equal sides. Not the whole weight of the right wing MRA patriarchy against a handful of female / gay / lesbian staff. With no option for balance.

Maybe if he had taken it down there could have been a debate. But he refused.

Idiot.

Sorry but you absolutely cannot have it both ways. Some people find those views abhorrent (or at least highly controversial) and use EXACTLY the arguments people are using on this thread to try to shut them down. Freedom of speech depends on us all being allowed to express our views, no matter what they are, and then we can argue against the ones we think are wrong, as we have done successfully with issues such as racism, gay marriage, and many more. You don't win arguments by shutting down the opposition

Totally agree.

This is like talking to a lump of wood, I'm out.

Me too. People are so thick. They’re probably the ones donating to this MRA’s fundraiser.

Would not suprise me

I'm a teacher. I put "controversial" views in front of my students all the time. Funnily enough, none of them have keeled over in a fit of pearl-clutching outrage when they find out that people have a range of opinions, some of which they strongly disagree with. This guy teaches a course called "perspectives" - wtf is he supposed to do? Check with you that his course content matches your opinions? You - someone who perpetuates what you know to be damaging gender nonsense because you don't have enough wit, courage or integrity to stand up to it. You, who will forever be cowering away from the truth, cringing in the shadows, hoping you're not found out, pointing the finger at others (do it to her! not me!) and desperately trying not to see that you are part of the problem. Get some critical thinking skills, develop some integrity, and grow a spine before it's too late. Maybe then you'll have an argument worth listening to and won't have to pretend people are 'thick'when they express coherent principles and call out your hypocrital bullshit.

Not promoting terrorism. Homophobia. Racism. Misogyny.

You don't put this kind of view in front of children as you would lose your job.

This video is absolutely vile. Free speech means it is still on YouTube. But employment law means this can't work in a school. It is a direct and targeted attack on women, especially lesbian women.

Thank goodness the male institution has done this. Times really have changed.

I cannot believe on the Feminism Board - where so many women have been ‘shut down’ in real life for going against trans orthodoxy - you cannot see the implications of denying freedom of speech in this instance.

You cannot have it both ways.

@yourfaceisaforeignfood

I cannot believe on the Feminism Board - where so many women have been ‘shut down’ in real life for going against trans orthodoxy - you cannot see the implications of denying freedom of speech in this instance.

You cannot have it both ways.

Yep.

Sorry for the DM link

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9007959/Eton-pupil-sent-home-sending-headmaster-letter-demanding-RESIGNS.html

Apparently the teacher also stated that women wanted to be overpowered in the bedroom, that half of the accusations of rape were false and wanted to show a clip where a girl said that her boyfriend’s brutality turned her on.

I still haven’t watched the actual clip (can’t be bothered), but if he phrased it as half the allegations of rape are false, I think that is outrageous unless he has evidence. If he said that a certain percentage only led to convictions and backed it up with facts, that is different.

I think it comes down to if he has crossed any legal lines (EA) or said something that was massively unethical. If so, I can understand the school’s argument that a dismissal after being asked 6 times to take it down (given that he was linked to the school on the web page).

My understanding is that the video was part of a course he'd previously taught which presented various controversial views, which he wasn't necessarily defending or promoting, but was presenting for debate and discussion among his students studying a "perspectives" course. I think that is completely fine, and I do the same thing with my students. Students/young people should be aware of different views and opinions and be given the resources to make up their own minds.

It doesn't sound to me like he has broken any laws or done anything unethical. It doesn't sound to me like he's trying to brainwash his students, either. I also think students can cope with 'maverick' teachers and usually enjoy the challenge of them. Students are not idiots just waiting receptively to have dogma put into their heads by teachers. They enjoy the challenge of dealing with controversial, difficult and sensitive ideas.

In 'The Coddling of the American Mind' the authors detail how the vast majority of teachers in the US system are left-wing and present left-wing views as facts, even when they have to dismiss actual facts to do so. I don't know what the situation is in the UK but I expect it's broadly similar. Certainly universities seem to be full of People of Woke. So it seems good to me if students are getting at least some familiarity with conservative or heterodox views.

I thought it odd when he claimed there are more male-on-male tapes in prison than male-on-female rapes in society at large. I'd expect to see some pretty hard evidence to support that, but none was offered.

Across what timespan? In which country? By whose calculation? Where is the data?

Free speech isn't a free-for-all in schools. There are always things you aren't allowed to talk to the children about. And you have to deliver the agreed curriculum; you can't just decide you disagree and teach a different version of an historical war, say, with the losing side winning. In school is different from at home or in the pub. Would everyone preaching free speech here be fine with the teachers in their child's classroom spouting profanities all day, for instance? So let's out that notion to bed. Free speech does not mean say anything you fancy without consequences.

This individual is the author of his own downfall and seems to have been given ample opportunity to comply with his employer's expectations. He chose not to.

The presentation is of poor quality, slow-paced and drearily voiced. I would not expect to engage and maintain the attention of secondary students with it. I'd give it a D for presentation and an F for content.

Who made him the authority on current radical feminist orthodoxy, btw?