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.

Personally I'm surprised to see anyone on a feminism board defending a teacher who has been pulled up by his employer for teaching MRA views to a class of already highly privileged boys, especially ones who are more likely than most to end up in a position where their views could negatively impact women.

No one on here is defending the teacher's views. (Personally I don't even know what they are - it seems some of you have a very different version than what I've heard. But it doesn't really matter either way.) However, people are defending freedom of speech. If it's okay to shut this guy down, then it's okay to shut feminists down too. Their views are often considered beyond the pale and unacceptable, too. Saying there are two sexes is hate speech, etc. If we agree that people shouldn't be allowed to share views that some others don't like, then women's rights are lost, forever.

It's a matter of principle. You cannot have it both ways.

On the other hand, let people say what they want, no matter how wrong or stupid. Once you let people share their awful opinions, they automatically expose them as being awful, and their power is lost. It's way better to let ideas be expressed freely. The best disinfectant is sunlight.

Has anyone seen the video?

I am all for the freedom of speech and I believe that you should be allowed to present different views.

I do not agree with presenting factually inaccurate statements (if indeed the rape claims were that).

I also think that there needs to be a balance in what students are shown, so they need to see both sides of the argument and not one uncontested view.

@queenofknives
On the other hand, let people say what they want, no matter how wrong or stupid. Once you let people share their awful opinions, they automatically expose them as being awful, and their power is lost. It's way better to let ideas be expressed freely. The best disinfectant is sunlight.

So schools shouldn't worry about stopping bullying because the onus is on the victim to know how to deal with it?

Times today. Quotes him.

It is actually hilarious it is so bad. Will sort a share token when at home.

Does it matter if you post a video about Sainsbury’s eco toilet roll is better than Andrex? It does if you are head of marketing at Andrex, even if it is a personal YouTube video. Parents that send kids to Eton choose it partly on the basis of an ethos it creates. Maybe they have an ethos of being sensitive to people etc - above intellectual challenge (as the guy himself said). If parents choose the school based on this then it is reasonable to require staff to not put things in public domain that go against the ethos.

1. Daily Mail and Telegraph reporting not bearing any relation to the substance of the issue nor containing enough facts to enable a reader to form a reasonable judgement. This is a surprise?

2. This teacher's straw man does not relate to the substance of his employer's decision. This is a surprise?

3. The quality of this teacher's youtube presentation and general argument should call into question his employer's recruitment and retention generally, outside this issue as he has presumably been employed for some time.

4. Odd timing. Any other stories relating to the institution appear around the same time?

[quote bravefox]@queenofknives
On the other hand, let people say what they want, no matter how wrong or stupid. Once you let people share their awful opinions, they automatically expose them as being awful, and their power is lost. It's way better to let ideas be expressed freely. The best disinfectant is sunlight.

So schools shouldn't worry about stopping bullying because the onus is on the victim to know how to deal with it?[/quote]
???

I have no idea what you're talking about. Your comment bears literally no relation to anything I've said.

Your argument seems to be: 'let people say whatever they want, people will decide for themselves whether to take it seriously or not'.

My point is if that's true, then you verbal bullying is ok because 'once you let people share their awful opinions, they automatically expose them as being awful, and their power is lost'.

No bravefox. You are taking part of my argument about free speech and twisting it to try to present it as a different argument about a different topic.

My actual point (or the part of it in question): People being free to discuss various ideas, even though others may find them controversial, is a good thing. When bad ideas are exposed through this process, they tend to be laughed out of having any kind of further influence. That is why TRAs had their 'no debate' slogan for so many years. They knew that if they had to bring their ideas to public scrutiny, they would quickly be exposed as so much nonsense. That was my point there.

Nothing to do with bullying. That's a totally different issue. No one is accusing this teacher of bullying. In fact, his students have organised a petition to try to get him reinstated.

I think it's weird that you are trying to twist my words. Why not address my actual argument? You could argue that you don't agree with free speech except for the ideas you personally like. That's certainly a popular argument. Or you could argue that you don't agree with free speech for teachers. That's another popular argument. I think they are both bad arguments, but they're better than trying to apply an argument about free speech to a completely unrelated topic in an effort to somehow discredit my character. I find that just... really depressingly dumb.

@queenofknives

No bravefox. You are taking part of my argument about free speech and twisting it to try to present it as a different argument about a different topic.

My actual point (or the part of it in question): People being free to discuss various ideas, even though others may find them controversial, is a good thing. When bad ideas are exposed through this process, they tend to be laughed out of having any kind of further influence. That is why TRAs had their 'no debate' slogan for so many years. They knew that if they had to bring their ideas to public scrutiny, they would quickly be exposed as so much nonsense. That was my point there.

Nothing to do with bullying. That's a totally different issue. No one is accusing this teacher of bullying. In fact, his students have organised a petition to try to get him reinstated.

I think it's weird that you are trying to twist my words. Why not address my actual argument? You could argue that you don't agree with free speech except for the ideas you personally like. That's certainly a popular argument. Or you could argue that you don't agree with free speech for teachers. That's another popular argument. I think they are both bad arguments, but they're better than trying to apply an argument about free speech to a completely unrelated topic in an effort to somehow discredit my character. I find that just... really depressingly dumb.

I fully understand your point. Allow total free speech, and then 'when bad ideas are exposed through this process, they tend to be laughed out of having any kind of further influence.'

In an ideal world, I get it, but my point is that does not always happen, as it depends on the circumstance of the free speech, the context in which it is delivered and who the audience is. Eg, playground namecalling - would you defend the right to free speech of the namecaller and say it's ok as 'when bad ideas are exposed through this process, they tend to be laughed out of having any kind of further influence'?

Once the school had two barrister's opinions that the video possibly breached the Equality Act the school had no option open to them. They couldn't let it stay up there once they had that legal advice. You can disagree with the Act itself, its application and its interpretation but the school isn't above the law (not even Eton!!) The correct course of action if you disagree is not expect your employer to aid and abet your potential breach of the legislation - it is to write to MPs, campaign, form pressure groups, and demand change to the law. He also could have taken the video down, stayed a teacher there and continued to put his case to the boys in a proper debate where they could tear his arguments apart. This way, no one wins - not the students, the school, the teacher, his family, nor the country as a whole as the law has not changed.

The social media policy stated that he would be in breach if he posted anything that would bring the school into disrepute - well I think we can see that definitely happened, no matter what side of the debate you're on. This is exactly why social media usage is policed by employers.

I don't think he should be fired for his views, censured by the state, be fined or go to prison, and I have very serious problems with the Equality Act as it stands (for instance, apparently teachers are now being given guidance that stating in a classroom to students that you disagree with the Equality Act is in itself against the Equality Act). I also think the drafting and guidance around "gender reassignment" is outdated and contentious - it clearly contemplates time out of the workplace for surgeries etc but we have moved far beyond that definition of gender reassignment. And don't get me started with the Stonewall law version of the act where the protected characteristic of sex is replaced by gender identity.

But I don't think the school could possibly have acted any other way once they got two legal opinions stating that the video breached equalities legislation. The teacher should have recognised their hands were tied and accepted one of the 6 chances to take it down they gave him before firing him. It sounds like they really, really didn't want to fire him, they bent over backwards to try and get him to take it down before they had fire him, and were hoping he would realise he was backing them into a corner where they had no choice but to fire him.

Just a really tragic situation all round. (Tragic in the Sophocleian sense!!)

(And yes I have seen the video - but this isn't about the video really. Once the school was in receipt of those barrister's opinions, rightly or wrongly, the video's content became irrelevant.)

Zilla1 - I did post upthread that I could only think they were going all out on this story because the day before another Eton teacher has been found guilty of sexual abuse. Too tired to find link, but it is there early on.

I'm not entirely sure I support absolute free speech and I think its a red herring.
The right to freedom of speech is freedom from being persecuted by your government for your political views.

I think people also have the right to a private life, and the right to a good reputation.

I do not support factual, truthful speech being policed as hate speech, and I do not support hateful speech or lies being presented as fact - and especially not if the audience are schoolchildren.

I see you did, OP. Interesting choice by the school - I'm not close to them but am mildly surprised they'd risk their core demographic, Telegraph and Daily Mail's ire without a 'good reason' though expect a majority of their custom is from overseas now.

I think people also have the right to a private life, and the right to a good reputation

Even the Royal family, Theinebriati?

The right to freedom of speech is freedom from being persecuted by your government for your political views

What about persecution from employers and the press? Should people be free from that also?

Well I sat through the video and couldn’t see any breaches of The Equality Act, which I’ve read, but then I’m not a lawyer.

Jenni Russell wrote about this in The Times comment section today. This paragraph, about the reply received from the students who wrote to the headmaster in protest of the sacking, is pure cancel culture, and I can’t get behind that:

They report that the head master told them how he decides whether ideas are “illegal”. The avoidance of any possible offence is paramount. “Anything that can be deemed hostile by any . . . member of . . . the school’s designated minority groups will be censored.”

It’s possible they presume female staff could have been offended by Knowland’s video but I don’t believe people have a right to not be offended. Can’t find that in the Equality Act as such.

What I did see in the video was a weak argument and some interesting assertions that are just begging to be explored (and refuted). The students of Eton lost an opportunity here because they aren’t being provided a different point of view. I watched specifically to get a different point of view from my own. These were older pupils on a module entitled Perspectives, plural. It was one video out of how many other perspectives being presented. We don’t know.

And yes, the video does indeed look like Jordan Peterson Light, but so what? I was appalled when Cambridge rescinded its offer to have Peterson as a visiting fellow. This mix of opposing ideas is precisely what develops critical thinking skills and leads to investigation, research, and new ideas.

Zilla and OP - I think the timing with the other case is significant but not in the way you mean in terms of an intentional cover-up. I think that the school leadership was probably fresh out of months of investigations, depositions, and court hearings for the other thing, so when presented with two barrister's opinions saying "this other teacher's actions possibly breaks the law" they had to insist it was taken down. I think the other case must have made them hyper aware of appearing to be condoning, aiding or abetting any possible law breaking by a school employee.

Andante we as a society decide where the limits of free speech lie. At the moment they're governed by the Equality Act, the Prevent strategy, etc and yes they bind employers, including schools. If we don't like it or feel that something is wrong the way it's all being applied then we need to change it - through letter writing, campaigning, getting politicians onside to vote for/against or introduce legislation, etc. and that's why I support organisations like FPFW and AWP doing exactly this in relation to women's rights.

I suppose this guy is trying to make himself a martyr to push it to court but I really think the school's hands were tied here once they had legal advice. I'm not a teacher, but my firm wouldn't have given him 6 chances to take it down - a single refusal would be enough in these circumstances (we were discussing this at work the other day).

It was one video out of how many other perspectives being presented. We don’t know.

We do know, it was meant to be one of at least two opposing perspectives, but when the person who was meant to be presenting the opposite perspective pulled out the school said it couldn't be presented (by a person who by all accounts is charismatic and popular among the students) because it would then appear to be instructive and didactic, rather than one of multiple points of view to be debated. That's when he went off on his own and put it on his personal youtube channel.

@Andante57

I think people also have the right to a private life, and the right to a good reputation

Even the Royal family, Theinebriati?

They Royal family do have a private life, what makes you think they dont?

Why should anyone be subject to lies published about them? Even Facebook manages to challenge fake news.

Can’t find that in the Equality Act as such

The fact that the head said the word "hostile" signals that this relates to the definition of harassment (s.26(1)) - if person A feels that the conduct of person B that relates to a relevant protected characteristic creates an "intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment". The perception of B (ie. whether B is offended) is explicitly taken into account (s26(4)(a)) though there is also a reasonableness test (was B reasonable to have felt that) (s.26(4)(c)) and other circumstances of the case, such as whether this was being presented in an assigned debate where someone may have been presenting points of view that they do not endorse, for educational purposes.

They Royal family do have a private life, what makes you think they dont?

Do you think it’s right to make shows like The Crown which has taken huge liberties with the truth yet plenty of people seem to believe it?

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.

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.

Agree and agree.

Thee arguments used on this thread are exactly the same as those used against women challenging the TRA ideology.

An ad hominen attack: Transphobic vs Misogyny
And a misrepresenting of the equality act (which is easy to do) to shut down a debate.

Ideas should be debated. Have to be debated.

You may think the patriarchy is an established fact which cannot be debated but it's not, it a theory, a position. YOU may think that gender is a social construct, but that is not an established fact, many other people, reasonable people, academics, have a different view. It should be debated.

Just like critical race theory is not a fact, and should be debated.
Just like gender is an internal identity and you can change sex should be debated.

Free speech is not an absolute, and we as a society agree some boundaries, such as incite to violence, hate (which I think is very problematic and has led to this TRA power), and areas commonly agreed to be settled e.g. holocaust denial, use of certain language agreed to be unecessarily inflammatory.

But if you cannot see that the arguments on this thread are exactly the same as those that got Maya Forstater sacked you need to take your blinkers off.

Shutting down of debate because you believe your position should be the only sanctioned one is so hugely dangerous, and the fact that so many women on these feminists boards don't experience cognitive dissonance with the: we must discuss this and not be shut down! rhetoric on trans, whilst at the same time saying 'you mustn't discuss biological differnecs in gender' because that it's hateful! is astounding.

Young people need to develop critical reasoning skills through being exposed to debate of wide and varying viewpoints. They need it for their cognitive, moral and emotional development.

You either agree with this or not; you don't get to then say: oh everything except the theories about evolutionary psychology and sex and gender as they're hateful.

When I see this I start to think: post modernist feminists with authoritarian tendencies are the same as the TRAs, just a different ideology.

Well, according to the Times he made that video to show to boys in a class on critical thinking. He was forbidden to use it by the HT so he put it online.

Frankly I think he should have been allowed to show it. His arguments are so wide open for criticism that I think it would have been good for the debate to take place. If there were open debate in critical thinking classes on Stonewalls/ Mermaids gender ideology in schools we might not be so far in the shit on that topic as we are.

Times also says the HT has said that no views are allowed to be expressed that might cause offence to minority groups - so guess they won't be debating gender ideology, or critiquing its incoherence either.

Lack of debate/ lack of critical thinking is never a good thing. It only leads to authoritarianism.