John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

Do you know it occurred to me last night that this was the same argument I had about 30 years ago with colleagues who questioned dyslexia. They used exactly the same arguments. Admitting people who can't read will lower standards. If they can't pass a written exam they shouldn't be in higher education. If we change things for them everyone will expect it. How can you tell someone who is dyslexic and someone who is just slow? Even- Dyslexia is a middle class term parents use for a thick child. Thank goodness some of us realised what was happening and adapted for dyslexic children and students. Just as those academics who realise what mental health difficulties are will adapt for their students and those who question it won't. And there I'm going to leave it. There is no point in trying to convince those who simply don't believe in something as I discovered 30 years ago. Time, research and knowledge leads to better practice thank goodness.

Before you leave it, would you like to explain how 'research' led to your conclusion about 'kind and caring attitudes'? You have shown zero understanding of research, so don't seem to be in a position to lecture anyone about how it works.

Or are you going to insult people then flounce rather than answer a difficult question? That's a pattern we've seen before on here ?

Some of us followed the research on dyslexia others didn't. Just as some will follow the research on mental health and act accordingly. Kind and caring attitudes come with following the research and not choosing to imagine that when things change it is always some sort of reduction in standards and lowering of expectations. The amount of talent which would have gone unrecognised if we had insisted on absolute proof first is uncountable. Research only finds things when researchers have open minds, but an idea that something may possibly be there, and don't reject every concept. I know that much.

Sigh.

I even broke it down in an earlier post so that you could see what sorts of things need to be considered before research can be reliable.

Nobody is saying that Dyslexics or people with many MH conditions are unable to learn. Nobody.

What I am saying is that there are MH conditions which do not lend themselves to the sufferer being better off in University, and that if courses have to be adapted to suit conditions where people are unable to listen to challenging views, there will be a reduction in standards.

I don't know how you can argue with that. Actually, you aren't even trying - you just shift the goalposts to deflect from the discussion in hand.

Oh interesting data just released from a study of a sample of university students, 11 % think speakers from the Tory party should be prevented from speaking, 5 % think speakers from the labour party should be prevented from speaking and 5 % think speakers from the socialist worker party should be banned.

Actually DD that is exactly what was said about dyslexics 30 years ago!
They need to do something with their hands
They'd be better off on a practical course
They can't keep up academically
They don't belong at university.
Surprise surprise some of them do and some of them do very well. And you can't judge because dyslexia is a disability just as mental health problems are a disability, and people with disabilities sometimes fail, just as people without disabilities do. But the disability is nothing to do with that failure and should never be considered as grounds for denying anyone access to higher education that is their decision not yours.

Who is saying that anyone should be denied access to HE?

People without the relevant A level grades already are, but you are repeatedly ignoring that inconvenient truth.

I have explained my position more than once, but you are not responding to what I say - you are twisting it to suit your bizarre agenda.

As for the Guardian article, I read that, too, and it is not as simple as you suggest (which is what happens when people report on research that they don't understand).

On the face of it, it seems very worrying, and if students are are being allowed to dictate which views they hear it is yet another indictment of the fee system.

Again, though, it is dangerous to believe reports of research studies without seeing the studies themselves. Asking whether universities should 'ensure that all students are protected from discrimination rather than allow unlimited free speech' is a very loaded question. I am guessing (which is all I can do without reading the research paper) that this is a journalist's summary of a research conclusion that is based on very different questions - no researcher asking questions phrased in that way would get the study past an ethics committee or any sort of peer review.

Still - this is another deflection, isn't it?

I do wonder Doodledog if pretending to be cleverer or more erudite than others makes you feel better. Who knows perhaps it does. I could go through this thread and pick out how your statements have shifted since the first one on Mental Health issues. But I can't be bothered. It is obvious to me that whatever I say you are going to try and belittle me in some way. If that makes you happy so be it. I said I was out before and returned because you post such tosh. Best to ignore you I think.

Galaxy

Oh interesting data just released from a study of a sample of university students, 11 % think speakers from the Tory party should be prevented from speaking, 5 % think speakers from the labour party should be prevented from speaking and 5 % think speakers from the socialist worker party should be banned.

Galaxy I hope you looked at this research examined the questions and the size of the study if there was allowance made for differing factors like the time of day, was it in Covid and anything else that might influence those results. If you haven't I wouldn't bother posting it. Its value will be questioned.

I don't mind being questioned

Glorianny

I do wonder Doodledog if pretending to be cleverer or more erudite than others makes you feel better. Who knows perhaps it does. I could go through this thread and pick out how your statements have shifted since the first one on Mental Health issues. But I can't be bothered. It is obvious to me that whatever I say you are going to try and belittle me in some way. If that makes you happy so be it. I said I was out before and returned because you post such tosh. Best to ignore you I think.

I found these comments, directed at Doodledog offensive. I feel they added nothing to an interesting discussion.

That doesn’t mean I believe you should be no platformed Glorianny. It did make me wonder whether you feel you’ve evolved further in compassion and intellectual understanding than those of us who you seem to believe are stuck in the 70’s.
Accusing people who don’t share your views of not understanding the detail, the extent of the issues could be seen as patronising

Galaxy I hope you looked at this research examined the questions and the size of the study if there was allowance made for differing factors like the time of day, was it in Covid and anything else that might influence those results. If you haven't I wouldn't bother posting it. Its value will be questioned.

Do you not question what you read in the papers? One of the things that students learn from hearing views other than their own is how to balance one set of assumptions against another, and not to stay entrenched in their one-track way of thinking.

This shifting of topic and moving of goalposts is all getting more familiar as the thread progresses, as some of us will probably have noticed?

Thanks, Iam. I'm losing the will to live now, and have made my point so often that my head is spinning. I don't expect anyone to agree, but coming back with insults and more twisting of my words doesn't move the discussion forward at all, and is pointless, so I'm going to leave it there.

Glorianny

I don't think referring to subjects in a considerate and understanding way using language acceptable to all is diluting anything and someone who can't mange to do that needs perhaps to examine why. If the views to be presented do deal with issues that might in some way disturb a section of society then that would need to be tackled in a sensitive way. Many such subjects are and all should be.

How can you ever present a subject using language that is acceptable to all? It just isn't possible. Everyone, including those with MH problems, has their own idea of what is 'acceptable' and what is acceptable to one might not be acceptable to another.

How can you sanitise a subject / issue to that extent?

I understand that some people's mental health is fragile, and there is no reason not to take that into account. However, University is traditionally an institution where ideas, assumptions - as well as facts and science - are examined and challenged... in the lecture halls and debating rooms, if you dilute the terminology and language to such an extent - for fear of offending someone, then you will change the whole ethos and so much will be lost in the drive for diplomacy that they will no longer be a seat of learning.

And no one individual has the right to decide for others what he thinks they should be allowed to hear. If the whole auditorium rises to its feet to protest, there might be a case to answer, but a handful - or even fewer people - saying they find something offensive and calling for no-platforming on that basis is wrong.

Democracy usually accepts the majority 'vote' and if the majority are not offended, then the majority rules. That's the reality.

This is the point I was making at the beginning if you are speaking to an audience of more than one on complex subjects you are going to offend someone. I think the evidence is that the complainers are a very small minority, so for example when Jordan Peterson was 'allowed' to speak at Cambridge the speech was very well attended so obviously many students did want to hear him.

Perfectly put, Dickens.

Great post Dickens.

As I posted earlier, when studying particularly at degree level, there's a lot of information available about what will be studied. Students can see if any part of the course they're considering, covers material that they may find to distressing to deal with, and that should enable them to make an informed decision whether or not the course is for them.

If not, then choose another course and allow those who want to study a particular course in its entirety to do so, with out being denied the opportunity to hear speakers simply because some may find the content upsetting.

Galaxy

This is the point I was making at the beginning if you are speaking to an audience of more than one on complex subjects you are going to offend someone. I think the evidence is that the complainers are a very small minority, so for example when Jordan Peterson was 'allowed' to speak at Cambridge the speech was very well attended so obviously many students did want to hear him.

Absolutely - I got your point.

I think with high-profile intellectuals, like Peterson, you often find that you can be in agreement with them on some things - but not others.

And that is the whole point of debate - to challenge the speaker on his / her assumptions, as much as he / she is challenging you on yours!

And if the speaker makes himself 'clear' in a manner in which you disapprove - you can challenge him on that too... you can tell someone their style of delivery offends you! And why it does! What you can't do is be offended and then decide on everyone else's behalf that they should be offended too.

I disagree completely with Peterson on numerous things, I can cope with listening to him though. I also know that on his specific fields of expertise he will know much more than me. It takes a particular level of arrogance to say I have nothing to learn from this particular person.

And that is the whole point of debate - to challenge the speaker on his / her assumptions, as much as he / she is challenging you on yours!

One of the very reasons for the very existence of a debating society, one might think!

Not just debating societies. There are many subjects where critical analysis is required for example history, English literature and the social sciences. If students are only going to be required to access material which they agree with, how will they ever learn to analyse the arguments on both sides and produce a coherent argument to support what they do agree with?

Not just debating societies

I realise that
But it is a debating society and the decisions they made which we are debating

And if it's applied to debating societies, where will it end?

Just popped back to say sorry if you were offended Iam64. I'm not really certain what being offended on the part of another person is classed as. But I apologise.

As far as the discussion on not being offensive during debates there are a number of subjects already handled sensitively and which even have legal restrictions about the language you use. So you cannot refer to black people in racist terms, and you cannot deny the holocaust happened. Do those of you who believe that debate is restricted by boundaries want to give up these restrictions and have a complete free-for-all. Or is it simply the latest restrictions that younger people want to introduce that are your concerns. And if that is so how are your views any less out dated than those who once thought using terms we now ban was OK?

Young people in Cambridge have decided recently that they dont want more restrictions on free speech, that's what the Peterson decision was about. So presumably I am really down with the kids.

I think the fewer restrictions we have on speech the better as historically it is generally minorities who are most impacted by it. Those who want restrictions seem to be of the view that it will always be the good guys imposing the boundaries, good luck with that.