Cambridge University LGBTQI+ students: we are not attempting to silence free speech, we just want to deplatform Helen Joyce

[snurtifier]

Helen Joyce has been invited to talk at Gonville & Caius College next week. This has provoked the usual outbreak of virtue signalling and the following response from "college LGBTQI+ officers". It is pretty much the full bingo card. Warning: contains complex mental gymnastics.

Dear all,
It has come to our attention that Gonville and Caius college, and the Divinity faculty, are hosting a speaker event on the 25th of October platforming Helen Joyce. This event has also been promoted by the Fac Bio to natural sciences, medic and vet med students. The title of the event is ‘Criticising gender-identity ideology: what happens when speech is silenced.’
Helen Joyce is a ‘gender critical’ activist, whose work largely focuses around anti-trans rhetoric and trans-exclusionary radical feminism. “Gender identity ideology” is frequently used as a dog-whistle for transphobic sentiment, cloaked in the language of free speech and scientific inquiry. It goes without saying that this kind of rhetoric is fundamentally against what we as LGBT officers stand for, and we are unanimously disgusted by the platforming of such views by Caius and the promotion of the event by the various faculties. Transgender identities should not be put forward as a subject for debate, and their existence is not an “ideology.”

Colleges, and the wider university, have a duty of care to their students, no matter their gender identity. By inviting speakers with inflammatory and bigoted views to speak, the staff involved are allowing transphobia to proliferate within the university, lending it a level of credibility, and crucially, potentially putting transgender students in harms’ way. Transgender people are an at-risk minority group – according to the Stonewall School Report 2017:
92% of trans young people have thought about taking their own life;
84% of trans young people have self-harmed; and

45% of trans young people have tried to take their own life.

Further to this, just days before the event was announced, the Home Office published the past years’ statistics on hate crimes in the UK, which revealed that transphobic hate crime has increased by 56% from last year, with 4,355 reports being made in England and Wales. In light of these statistics, the platforming of a speaker with these transphobic views takes on a particularly alarming salience.

Freedom of speech, of course, is protected in law; Helen Joyce has the right to speak as she pleases. The core of the issue we take is with the senior staff and fellows who have chosen to platform this speaker, which we consider a violation of their duty of care. To invite a speaker whose publicly expressed views include advocating “reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition” both legitimises active transphobia and also alienates and hurts transgender individuals on a personal and emotional level. Furthermore, the fact that this has been promoted to medical students, who will inevitably treat transgender patients in their future careers, presents a further risk to trans individuals not just in the university, but in the wider community, with the potential for wide-reaching and long-lasting harm.

This is not an attempt to silence free speech, but rather, us exercising our own right to that speech in the face of an event which is, in our view, not only irresponsible but actively harmful and cruel to the transgender students at Cambridge. Trans people deserve a university experience as comfortable, safe, and joyful as everyone else, and the University should take an active role in ensuring that – a role that they have, on this occasion, failed to fulfil. It is for these reasons that we implore Gonville and Caius to reconsider their decision to platform Joyce.
If any individual feels unsafe, upset or troubled by this event, please talk to someone – your college LGBT officer, an SU representative, a college or university counsellor, or a charity helpline. We have attached some resources at the end of this letter.
With love and solidarity,
The college LGBT officers

@Brefugee Why debate when you can dismiss your opponents outright by labelling them dishonest and hateful?

It’s so much more efficient and effective: you don’t have to go to the bother of formulating responses to what they’re saying, and you also dissuade other people from engaging in the first place and therefore judging the other side on its merits. I mean, if we assume that such-and-such speaker is motivated purely by hate, what they say is not only worthless (ie a waste of time to listen to), but might also be actively unsafe.

It’s also completely unprovable either way, so unlike with other arguments the person cannot disprove what you’re saying. And the more they are forced to say ‘I’m not a bigot’, the worse it looks for them.

well quite which is why i am pretty much avoiding all discussion on these topics here and elsewhere.

The sad thing? I'm not transphobic. I want to find a way forward that causes the least harm to anyone. TRAs are not arguing in good faith - and there's not much point. I'm old. I don't have to put up with it much longer :(

I’m really interested in all the comments that seem to suggest there should be no limits on what debates/discussions can be held.

I personally don’t find Helen Joyce’s views at all problematic and can see no earthly reason why she should be de-platformed - but there are topics I presume most would agree shouldn’t be the subject of a formal debate at a top (or any) university. I guess I’m thinking of something like “Do people who aren’t white have lower IQs than white people?” or similar. I wouldn’t be keen on that being hosted or promoted.

Also interesting on Gaddafi speaking at the Union. I remember this and the protests, but I thought the right decision was made to let it go ahead. I do feel this is different from the racial IQ question above.

I would think that's a great question for debate. It's clear, has a simple for/against and can be argued on the basis of evidence. The person with the most convincing evidence would have a showcase to prove their point.

Why do you think it shouldn't be debated, Catabogus? I guess you could say we already know the answer but surely it's still good to show and explain the answer?

@Catabogus I can remember attending a talk by Martin Bernal, who wrote a controversial book called Black Athena which claimed that much of ancient Greek culture was derived from Egyptian sources. Then and now his work was widely disparaged by classical scholars, but they didn't seek to deplatform him. Instead they all turned up to the talk and gave him a thorough working over in the questions afterwards.

I guess there would be an argument for refusing a platform to someone like David Irving, but that's an extreme case.

I'm in Germany so, for eg, a Holocaust denier won't get a platform anywhere because it's illegal. So i do get that some things are just too far in some cultures.

But i firmly believe that if you want to rebut something you do just that, with clear logical and factual argument against what they say, to their face, preferably with an audience. Sink or swim.

Oh I agree with you that, regardless of the scholarship, Black Athena is a great subject for public debate!

I’m surprised people would be happy with a public university hosting a talk (or research) on racial IQ differences though. It’s not that we “know the answer” - it’s that merely hosting the debate would imply it’s a legitimate issue for concern when in fact it would most likely be a pretext for justifying racism.

Do people typically think there are no topics that should be off-limits for a publicly hosted talk at a university then? I’m not sure why David Irving should be deplatformed really but racial IQ differences would be fine.

I guess I’m thinking of something like “Do people who aren’t white have lower IQs than white people?” or similar. I wouldn’t be keen on that being hosted or promoted.

I instinctively wouldn’t like that either, and it would be hard to motivate myself go along and listen, but surely doing that and asking pointed questions is the most fruitful way forward? Or to insist on it being a debate, rather than a lecture, perhaps with another academic department booking the other speaker?

Or if no one was willing to engage in a direct debate perhaps lobby for an alternative presentation elsewhere on campus?

In your particular example the alternative event wouldn’t actually need to book someone to speak on the same subject, just get a reknowned black academic to do their own thing on the same day and then the students organising it can work their arses off to promote their own event and far outsell the other one.
This would result in favourable press for their event and thus in context, whomp whomp noises for the other speaker.

I dunno, I guess I’m just thinking about what I’d encourage my own teens to do, rather than get something cancelled or turn up and shout obscenities and bang on the walls!

Aim to creat a battle of ideas, not a silent climate of fear?

I’m sure there are loads of glam London based trans celebs who would appear on a panel type event in Cambridge that same night - I doubt any would be brave enough to debate Helen Joyce, but they could surely do an alternative?

Shon Faye’s book was released at the same time as Joyce’s and Faye does lots of speaking gigs. Why not aim for Shon Faye on the other side of the campus, scheduled to start either before or after? Maybe even get some of the same audience to move from one to the other?

i mean, I’m aware a talk on “The Holocaust: did it really happen?” would attract all sorts of unsavoury people with dubious motivations - but so would “Are Black people less intelligent?”. I just don’t think anything Helen Joyce wants to say would fit into this category (I realise this may be because I agree with everything I’ve read by her!)

But when a university hosts a talk, isn’t there a sense that the institution thinks the subject of the talk is a legitimate issue? If the local “fascist club” hosted a talk on racial IQ I wouldn’t be too het up. If it was Uni of Cambridge I would be shocked.

Do people typically think there are no topics that should be off-limits for a publicly hosted talk at a university then?

The line should be the law, so nothing that the courts have declared as not WORIAD (not worthy of debate in a democratic society) and nothing that involves incitement to violence.

if students think the law is wrong, they should campaign to change the law, not just impose their own rules re: what and what isn’t acceptable.

I agree with @TheClogLady The example of holocaust denial is a good one. It is illegal to do that because the facts of the situation have been socially agreed in response to devastating events and put into law. I think we could/should argue the same when it comes to speaking about racial differences. People should be legally recognised as people regardless of race and there is no value/merit in a discussion that tried to pick that apart in any way. It should be law and I am sure laws could be used against that sort of "discussion". The discussion about sex/gender has been proven in a court to be WORIADS, it is an example of an issue that has not yet been socially agreed.

I met some Holocaust deniers this year (racist misogynists too in case you were wondering). I would love to see them formally debate their views and have them calmly exposed to rigorous scrutiny. No topic should be undebateable.

I don't think any subject should be off limits for debate. We can't "socially agree" facts - we have to bring facts and evidence and be prepared to state our case over and over again. You can't just tell people "this is the rght way to think about a topic" you need to explain, educate and convince them with evidence.

On the example of racial differences I think any debate these days is more likely to be along the lines of "are white people all evil/stupid/racist" than the other way around. But of course we should debate that! A lot of people say they think this, so it ought to be properly discussed.

Slightly bigger picture, but this seems to point to a real lack of teaching these people have had around concepts like free speech, but also how universities are meant to function. (As well as the fact that something like gender ideology, no matter what you think of it, is an abstracted system, not some kind of self-evident fact.)

I remember, eons ago, actually covering these kinds of civics lessons in school, well before I was 16. I don't remember what the class was, but we discussed things like civil liberties, what that meant in terms of the law and how it was manifest in social function, also about instances like civil liberties groups in the US fighting for the free speech rights of KKK members. I understood why university faculty had tenure.

It seems pretty clear from these kinds of letters that these kids are operating at the level of 10 years olds, they seem to be missing basic knowledge.

And when I look at what my own kids are learning in school, it's clear why. They don't touch on any of this. They are almost overwhelmed with social justice topics, both in class and from speakers and groups invited from outside the school, or materials on posters and so on. They have all kinds of days dedicated to these different issues, they don't have things that we did like a debate team, model Parliament, model UN, or anything like that. About 90% of student groups are identity related.

It's an interesting point. My fear though is that some speakers are very charismatic, and as many of us have discovered over the last few years, there many regular people who are taken in by non-logical arguments, and swayed into popular opinion.

I agree that we should talk to the racists (et al) and probe their thinking and make them "use their words"
This is our tactic during elections in Germany when the AfD are out and about. We engage them in conversation because that means they can't talk to the other passers by (we also take as many leaflets as we think we can get away with...)

I've had more than one where they say "there are so many foreigners and refugees coming in with their foreign ways and taking all the jobs"
"oh yes there are lots of foreigners where i work"
"see, so many"
"yes, but they all look like me. I'm a foreigner, surely you don't mean me?"
"of course not"
"which ones?"
"well, you know"
"no, i don't, can you explain?"

It's the same thing on a smaller scale than a talk or a lecture: but it doesn't stand to having a light shone on it.

If I were a black student (I’m not but have taught many) I would feel very uncomfortable studying at a university that thought it was fine to sponsor a public debate on whether black people have lower IQ than white people. I imagine most black students (and staff) would.

I am trying mentally to extend this thought experiment to trans-identifying students at Cambridge seeing the Helen Joyce talk advertised - and I can’t. I think it’s because her talk is evidently not about “are trans people <insert derogatory adjective here>?” but about silencing of free speech in the context of gender-identity ideology.

I do take your point about the possibility/risk of PoMo bollocks/‘lived experience’ subsuming the idea of respecting science. On the other hand, though, all other things being equal I think the humanities and STEM need, if anything, to be more integrated, not less. Scientific rigour can (in theory) hold to account ideas and theses from the humanities, act as a reminder that they are theses and not theories in the scientific sense, and hopefully enrich all other areas of study. Just as the study of the humanities/arts can and should enrich scientific study.

Yes this too - but also that the talk would presumably attract large numbers of racists/anti-semites who we probably don’t want to invite to gather together inside university premises.

Cambridge going seriously downhill if this is the standard of thought. Why are all these very intelligent people so frightened? Presumably their little absolutist mentality cannot stand a little discussion. Suggests there should be much more of it, not less.

Well now you're saying "sponsor" a debate. I think that's a bit different than simply allowing a debate to be held.

If it's a debate it means you can go and have your views heard. Far better for these discussions to be out in the open.

There are loads of lectuses, books etc that say white people are inferior. I'd love there to be an actual debate so I could see their evidence and reasoning.

You can't combat bad ideas by censoring them.

I’m not convinced those large numbers exist?

When we went investigating UK Fascism for another thread we discovered the National Front has crumbled down to a dust (29 members as of earlier this year)!

Why wouldn't that be a topic for debate?

Do you think the evidence would show they were?

So who gets to decide which ideas and speakers are too dangerous for the public to make up their own minds about? Who decides which are the incorrect views which shouldn't be heard?

Sorry but that is one hell of a slippery slope towards authoritarianism.