John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

Please don't use the case of Natasha Abrahart to try to prove your point.

It's offensive and upsetting.

why do you think Rosie's post means she approves of blacking up Glorianny. She's referring to Matt Lucas changing his mind about what is and isn't acceptable, not giving her own opinion either way.

Galaxy

My friend would view shielding from 'difficult' views as deeply othering and patronising, as not being treated as a genuine member of society.

Quite.

Glorianny

Callistemon21

Well I guess it is quite a while since you worked in a university. A lecturer I know tells me that this year over 50% of her students have mental health problems. She also has a large number of overseas students who need higher levels of support. So perhaps 60% of her students should be considered as vulnerable, much higher than the average population.

If that is true and over 50% of her students have diagnosed MH problems then perhaps one could query why and ask if university is the right environment for them at this particular time. Perhaps they should defer until they have had help to overcome their MH problems with proper, medical treatment and support.

Oh come on! Firstly it is completely wrong to.discriminate against students on the grounds of ill health or disability. Secondly aren't we trying to make mental health issues just a part of life and not something which marks someone out as different? What if the problem takes years to respond to treatment?
The 50% undoubtedly takes in students who have suffered in lockdown and your solution is to penalise them more!!

I wasn't talking about discriminating, in fact didn't even suggest it.
Don't put words into my mouth.

I just questioned whether over 50% of the students your friend know have diagnosed MH problems and whether or not university is the right environment for them.
Leaving home, perhaps for the first time, facing everything for the first time, is bound to cause some students more stress and anxiety than others.
It doesn't necessarily constitute a mental illness.

Is your lecturer friend a psychiatrist?

My friend would view shielding from 'difficult' views as deeply othering and patronising, as not being treated as a genuine member of society.

We are well off topic now, aren't we?

I would suggest that any students (and I would apply this advice to the rest of the population too) who felt that their MH was too fragile to withstand hearing things with which they disagree should stay at home, rather than expecting the university experience of everyone else to be diminished.

I would also question the wisdom of anyone who is unable to withstand the trauma of hearing an opposing point of view leaving home and entering a challenging environment which is designed to stretch their thinking.

I have no idea what mental health problems her students have. I assume as she knows about them there has been some process of diagnosis and recording. I think there is a narrow line between feeling very unhappy or depressed and becoming suicidal, and starting Uni can exacerbate that. The University has a duty of care, should it fail to fulfil that duty there will be repercussions. Such as this thetab.com/uk/2022/05/20/discrimination-by-the-university-of-bristol-led-to-the-suicide-of-a-vulnerable-student-natasha-abrahart-252333

The student suicide rate in Unis has dropped in the last five years. Possibly because better policies are being employed.

Callistemon21

^Well I guess it is quite a while since you worked in a university. A lecturer I know tells me that this year over 50% of her students have mental health problems. She also has a large number of overseas students who need higher levels of support. So perhaps 60% of her students should be considered as vulnerable, much higher than the average population.^

If that is true and over 50% of her students have diagnosed MH problems then perhaps one could query why and ask if university is the right environment for them at this particular time. Perhaps they should defer until they have had help to overcome their MH problems with proper, medical treatment and support.

Oh come on! Firstly it is completely wrong to.discriminate against students on the grounds of ill health or disability. Secondly aren't we trying to make mental health issues just a part of life and not something which marks someone out as different? What if the problem takes years to respond to treatment?
The 50% undoubtedly takes in students who have suffered in lockdown and your solution is to penalise them more!!

It's not really relevant, but it is coming to 5 years since I worked full time, and I still do both consultancy and bits of teaching on a part-time basis.

I won't repeat Iam's or Callistemon's posts, but I agree with everything they say.

Why would students differ from the rest of the population from which they are drawn? Also, removing responsibility for what they see or hear seems like a strange way to help them to gain mental resilience.

As I understand it from the link I posted upthread (source the BBC) A G-D did apologise, but that doesn't mean much, if people are supposed to apologise simply because someone has taken offence. I am tempted to suggest that if you are right that students are all emotionally or mentally vulnerable then it is inevitable that anyone speaking to them would need to apologise for anything and everything they say; but I won't, as I don't share your view that students are any different from any other people of their ages.

As for my 'apology' line in the sand - I don't see that as relevant either, as the law says where the lines are (anything that might incite hatred or criminal behaviour) - but as you are insisting for some reason, I would apologise if I felt I had overstepped a mark. I would mean the apology if I genuinely regretted my words (even if I didn't personally think that the remarks were offensive), but if I still had a career, I would go through the motions if I felt that my livelihood were at risk because of a zealot who was trying to get me cancelled.

I take my hat off to those who are braver, but I understand those who put feeding their families and paying the mortgage above principles. The fact that AG-D apologised doesn't mean that he was in the wrong.

We are not to debate difficult ideas because of the possibility some people have mental health issues. My closest friend has lived with severe mental health issues all her life. She would be deeply offended that she couldnt cope with ideas that she disagreed with.

Feelings of uncertainty, worry, feeling a but down or sad.

Which most people will experience sometimes, especially when facing a huge step in their lives such as going to university, away from home and facing new challenges.

Unless these feelings become out of control, categorising them under the MH umbrella devalues the very real problems that a few students may have. Those with very real MH illness may not be in the best environment at university.

X posted there Callistemon

A lecturer you know suggests 60% of her students are vulnerable, 50% have mental health problems.

Maybe this is a totally different thread but seriously, where is the research to support this?
The use of ‘mental health problems’ as s description of all manner of things has increased to the point I worry it’s diminishing the very real mental health problems that some people are diagnosed with.

I’ve listened to people talking about ‘my mental health’ when they don’t mean schizophrenia, psychosis, clinical depression or anxiety. Often it becomes clear it’s feelings being discussed. Feelings of uncertainty, worry, feeling a but down or sad. Im not trying to dismiss these understandable and uncomfortable feelings. They’re very different though than the kind of mental health illnesses that lead to hospital admissions of treatment.

Well I guess it is quite a while since you worked in a university. A lecturer I know tells me that this year over 50% of her students have mental health problems. She also has a large number of overseas students who need higher levels of support. So perhaps 60% of her students should be considered as vulnerable, much higher than the average population.

If that is true and over 50% of her students have diagnosed MH problems then perhaps one could query why and ask if university is the right environment for them at this particular time. Perhaps they should defer until they have had help to overcome their MH problems with proper, medical treatment and support.

Doodledog

Glorianny

As for the issue of audience members being offended and that being their own concern, to what level would any of you like to take that argument. To the level where blacking up is OK because it's only black people who are offended? And if not where do you draw the line? It seems to me that if one particular section of your audience is offended by what you say (and that might be only one person) then you have a duty to apologise to them. If what you intend to say is known to be offensive to a section of the people you wish to speak to, then you should expect the organisers to take steps to ensure what you say will not offend them, and, if you cannot assure them of this, to be stopped from speaking. Especially when young vulnerable people are involved.

I am offended by blacking up, (and I am white). I don't think it is only black people who would object.

If a performer blacked up at a university - and (crucially) if they did so in a non-satirical way - I would expect the student audience to make it clear that they found it unacceptable. Which is different from having a spokesperson decide how they should think and ban the performer.

If, OTOH, a speaker was talking about the history of people of colour in the media, and blacked up to show how it worked, or was satirising the way in which white actors were chosen to play the parts of black characters, I would expect students to be intelligent enough to know the difference between this and support for the practice.

The idea that if one person in an audience is offended the organisers should apologise is, IMO, daft. Nothing would ever be performed again, as there would be no time left for the performance. I find a lot of comments on TV about so-called Boomers (of which I am one) offensive. The comments are often inaccurate, lazy and inapplicable to the majority of people in the Boomer age group. Should there be an apology every time someone makes such generalisations? What about comments about young people? Benefit claimants? Northerners? Southerners? Graduates? Second home owners? The vaccinated? The non-vaccinated? etc.

Finally, having worked in universities for most of my career, I would agree that students are (on the whole, but not exclusively) young, but would argue that they are no more or less vulnerable than any other section of society.

Well I guess it is quite a while since you worked in a university. A lecturer I know tells me that this year over 50% of her students have mental health problems. She also has a large number of overseas students who need higher levels of support. So perhaps 60% of her students should be considered as vulnerable, much higher than the average population.

As for the allegations of it being one person who took action. As has repeatedly been said on this thread he did so in response to student complaints. There was also support for his views from the Equalities Officer. Please stop trying to blame one young man who may have over reacted but did so out of concern for his fellow students.

I didn't say the organiser should apologise I said the speaker should. It's simple good manners. I realise I have caused offence I apologise.
If someone is speaking or performing and you find something they say offensive why not complain? Why not ask for an apology?

I don't think any black person would find blacking up in any way acceptable. Nor do I think people have to consider the niceties of how language is used or the intent behind it. There may be all sorts of clever stuff going on, but if you use language which is distaste-full and offensive to sections of the community then you should realise that you in some ways endorse that language, however ironic you may think you are being.
But I notice that you still haven't said where you would draw the line. I've made my parameters clear. Why can't you?

Glorianny

As for the issue of audience members being offended and that being their own concern, to what level would any of you like to take that argument. To the level where blacking up is OK because it's only black people who are offended? And if not where do you draw the line? It seems to me that if one particular section of your audience is offended by what you say (and that might be only one person) then you have a duty to apologise to them. If what you intend to say is known to be offensive to a section of the people you wish to speak to, then you should expect the organisers to take steps to ensure what you say will not offend them, and, if you cannot assure them of this, to be stopped from speaking. Especially when young vulnerable people are involved.

I am offended by blacking up, (and I am white). I don't think it is only black people who would object.

If a performer blacked up at a university - and (crucially) if they did so in a non-satirical way - I would expect the student audience to make it clear that they found it unacceptable. Which is different from having a spokesperson decide how they should think and ban the performer.

If, OTOH, a speaker was talking about the history of people of colour in the media, and blacked up to show how it worked, or was satirising the way in which white actors were chosen to play the parts of black characters, I would expect students to be intelligent enough to know the difference between this and support for the practice.

The idea that if one person in an audience is offended the organisers should apologise is, IMO, daft. Nothing would ever be performed again, as there would be no time left for the performance. I find a lot of comments on TV about so-called Boomers (of which I am one) offensive. The comments are often inaccurate, lazy and inapplicable to the majority of people in the Boomer age group. Should there be an apology every time someone makes such generalisations? What about comments about young people? Benefit claimants? Northerners? Southerners? Graduates? Second home owners? The vaccinated? The non-vaccinated? etc.

Finally, having worked in universities for most of my career, I would agree that students are (on the whole, but not exclusively) young, but would argue that they are no more or less vulnerable than any other section of society.

Glorianny

Doodledog

You are clutching at straws now. If you can't see that your last post has nothing to do with the principle that is being argued on this thread - that of one person deciding what others should have the opportunity to listen to, and the power to have someone banned from a range of venues - then I don't know how to get through to you.

Really! You bring up a list of people and then tell me it isn't applicable.
There was no ban
There was no blacklist
The one person involved did not do anything.
The one person involved has gone..
But I accept you have no reply because what you allege isn't true, didn't happen and the consequences you threaten are impossible

The list is of people who have been no platformed. I have not said it is not applicable (applicable to what?).

Which 'one person involved' did nothing? Do you mean KB or AG-D? If the former, yes he did do something - he drew up a list of people he didn't want to be given the chance to speak to students. The fact that it was thwarted is (IMO) a good thing, but he still did it.

Which 'one person involved' is gone? Gone where? And why does it matter to the principle of 'one person' having the right to silence others?

What am I alleging? I am not threatening consequences . I am talking about what KB was trying to achieve. The consequences of his actions didn't materialise because there is the start of a backlash against the autocratic way of thinking that allows self-appointed arbiters of what is acceptable to impose their ways of thinking onto others. The fact that KB was elected isn't relevant in this case, as (AFAIK) he was not elected to ban people on behalf of others, and to send names of those he wished to suppress to other institutions.

Chewbacca

^I wonder what changed his mind..........hmmm.....^

I'd hazard a guess the same as many others who can see their careers going down the pan Rosie51; getting cancelled.

Possibly he has more knowledge about black people???

OMG You don'r think that list??....

Rosie51

^Matt Lucas has said that some of the stuff he did in Little Britain was totally unacceptable^ and yet he along with others denied it when it was much was criticised and condemned at the time? I wonder what changed his mind..........hmmm.....

I take it this means you approve of blacking up then?

Doodledog

You are clutching at straws now. If you can't see that your last post has nothing to do with the principle that is being argued on this thread - that of one person deciding what others should have the opportunity to listen to, and the power to have someone banned from a range of venues - then I don't know how to get through to you.

Really! You bring up a list of people and then tell me it isn't applicable.
There was no ban
There was no blacklist
The one person involved did not do anything.
The one person involved has gone..
But I accept you have no reply because what you allege isn't true, didn't happen and the consequences you threaten are impossible

As for the issue of audience members being offended and that being their own concern, to what level would any of you like to take that argument. To the level where blacking up is OK because it's only black people who are offended? And if not where do you draw the line? It seems to me that if one particular section of your audience is offended by what you say (and that might be only one person) then you have a duty to apologise to them. If what you intend to say is known to be offensive to a section of the people you wish to speak to, then you should expect the organisers to take steps to ensure what you say will not offend them, and, if you cannot assure them of this, to be stopped from speaking. Especially when young vulnerable people are involved.

You are clutching at straws now. If you can't see that your last post has nothing to do with the principle that is being argued on this thread - that of one person deciding what others should have the opportunity to listen to, and the power to have someone banned from a range of venues - then I don't know how to get through to you.

Doodledog

Glorianny

Many people these days are afraid of falling foul of the trend of no-platforming, which has ruined the careers of many, as, it would appear, Bradwell had hoped to do to AG-D.
Oh come on AGD has a flourishing website, god knows how many books and TV programmes and a series of tours. The possibility that one critical student could ruin his career is ludicrous.

Are you deliberately missing the point? It’s not just one student- the threat from that one student was to circulate a list to other unions with AG-D’s name on it.

If you are not aware of how ’cancellation’ can finish someone’s career, perhaps you should research some of the people on the list upthread before commenting further.

And is it students who buy his books, join his website, go on his tours? Of course it isn't. Might he perhaps lose one small section of the public and a little amount in fees? Possibly. Would his career be ruined? Of course not. It's not only a ridiculous premise it has absolutely no validity in fact.

As for this "OOo these students won't listen to us" Well why should they? Had students always listened to older people we'd still have all the racist, sexist, biased stuff older generations have always attempted to pass on. The wonder is that those who should know better persist in trying to pass on their prejudices and are now pretending it is some sort of free speech issue.

Glorianny

^Many people these days are afraid of falling foul of the trend of no-platforming, which has ruined the careers of many, as, it would appear, Bradwell had hoped to do to AG-D.^
Oh come on AGD has a flourishing website, god knows how many books and TV programmes and a series of tours. The possibility that one critical student could ruin his career is ludicrous.

Are you deliberately missing the point? It’s not just one student- the threat from that one student was to circulate a list to other unions with AG-D’s name on it.

If you are not aware of how ’cancellation’ can finish someone’s career, perhaps you should research some of the people on the list upthread before commenting further.

I wonder what changed his mind..........hmmm.....

I'd hazard a guess the same as many others who can see their careers going down the pan Rosie51; getting cancelled.