John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

Andrew Graham Dixon has said 'I apologise sincerely to anyone who found my debating tactics and use of Hitler's own language distressing; on reflection I can see that some of the words I used, even in quotation, are inherently offensive. It was not my intention to upset anybody, merely to persuade them that bad taste and bad morality often go hand in hand.'
So he evidently understands what happened.
The Union's Equalities Officer said that art historian Graham-Dixon's impression was 'absolutely unacceptable' and 'utterly horrifying.'
A former President of the Union tweeted that AGD's performance made him feel physically sick
Keir Bradwell has denied being drunk and said he had two glasses of wine as did the speaker.
It seems everyone including the speaker recognises that it was a mistake and offensive, apart of course from some people on GN who seem to think they know better than anyone else, including the speaker and those present at the debate.

Personally I think drawing a parallel between bad taste and bad morality is in itself a questionable tactic. Are we to gather from that that bad morality is OK if it is combined with good taste?

Bradwell was drunk I thought it was just some of the students.

I'm astonished that this idiot man remains as President of the Student Union, still it looks as if some good came out of the debacle Chewbacca.

As a partial consequence of Mr Bradwell's high handedness, in instructing other universities to compile and add to their "blacklist" of speakers, he prompted the "new legal duties to protect freedom of speech at universities and colleges in England" reforms; thereby falling on his own petard.
Sober next time perhaps.

I'm just astonished that the President of the Student Union of one of the top universities in the world can advocate such close-mindedness.

However, his judgement could have been impaired by alcohol so was it of any value whatsoever?

Chewbacca Sun 19-Jun-22 22:04:11

So, to sum it up: AGD went to a university and spoke to some students about the holocaust and, during his talk, he ridiculed hitler. Some of the students were, by their own admission, the worse for drink. His talk was taken completely out of context and a whole different spin was put on it. The head of Students Union, Keir Bradwell, was affronted by their erroneous understanding of the lecture and his knee jerk reaction was to vow not only to bar AGD from speaking at Cambridge university again, but to also inform other universities to do the same. Some people on this thread have had the same knee jerk reaction. Would it be beneficial to the students, and the offended on this thread, to perhaps watch the video again and take great care to listen and understand what is actually being said, rather than being outraged and offended by their own misunderstanding and lack of critical thinking?

This.

To add,

"Mr Bradwell could not confirm how many complaints the union had received, but said: "It was the largest number in my time in Cambridge by an awfully long way."

He said the union now planned to "institutionalise firm definitions of racism", including anti-black racism and anti-Semitism.

"We will create a blacklist of speakers never to be invited back, and we will share it with other unions too. Andrew will be on that list," Mr Bradwell wrote to members.

"Mr Bradwell, who joked about the speech directly afterwards, has since apologised to members. While presiding over the debate, he said he was "quite drunk".

Of course, he doesn't think it affected his ability to preside over the debate, as he stated.

Alcohol can impede complex thought patterns - especially when you are 'quite drunk'. But obviously, this known scientific fact doesn't apply to him, or his critical-thinking ability.

I find it appalling that his subjective opinion gives him so much power.

Just this.......

volver

Yes, yes, of course, its me who is taking the opposite view to everybody on here.

Isn't it?

Nope!

Gaun yersel' volver you're spot on.

Callistemon21

We're all listening to you, Glorianny but putting our views, which may not necessarily be the same as yours, in a polite way. As you are yours.

We havent no-platformed you or ignored you because we're all adults and prepared to listen and debate salient points.

I think that Cambridge Union President and officials could learn a few tips from Gransnetters.

If you took a vote and asked me to leave because you found my views offensive I would have no objection at all and leave the thread. Why would you imagine otherwise? If I believe in no-platforming for democratic organisations why wouldn't I?
I think though you are confusing an open forum with a private democratic organisation.

Well perhaps as happens in most democratic organisations the elected officials?
As said it is well nigh impossible to allege there is some sort of organised action going on because Union officials are elected yearly and students last at the most 7 years. It might be more appropriate to ask when it is almost 50years since no-platforming started why has it suddenly become an issue?

We're all listening to you, Glorianny but putting our views, which may not necessarily be the same as yours, in a polite way. As you are yours.

We havent no-platformed you or ignored you because we're all adults and prepared to listen and debate salient points.

I think that Cambridge Union President and officials could learn a few tips from Gransnetters.

volver

Yes, yes, of course, its me who is taking the opposite view to everybody on here.

Isn't it?

No.

KB was the elected President of the Union. He was messaged by his electorate with complaints about AGD. He acted on those complaints. Should he have ignored them? You can argue that he should have taken longer to decide but Union officials only serve for a year anyway.

I think there are a lot of unknowns here (unless you have insider information?). If all of KB's members attended the meeting, and if all of them complained, then he may well be mandated to take action (unless there is anything in the terms of reference to suggest otherwise). If, OTOH, the meeting was attended by a small percentage of the membership, and a small percentage of them complained, then it's a different matter. Regardless, his decision to create a blacklist of people he doesn't like and circulate it to other unions seems to exceed his authority as a representative of one union in one university.

In any case, the main topic of thread is not about the minutiae of the aftermath of this meeting, but about the principle on which some people decide on what and whom others can hear, and whether students need this protection because of their delicate constitutions, and I would be interested to know your opinion on whether that should be the case, and if so, on what ground these people should be chosen? For avoidance of doubt, I am not asking who should decide which speakers to invite, but about who should decide if and when people should be banned from speaking, even if others would be interested to hear them.

Having an opinion isn't the same as being correct.

But we'll save that philosophical discussion for another day.

No volver; it's not you. It's like trying to drive a nail into a brick wall, so I just gave up. Perhaps I should just have flounced too.

No but you seem determined to ignore anyone else and belittle them with references to irrelevant classical or religious concepts. Quite why I have no idea. I realise I don't agree with the majority.
I don't see government interference in any way as a good thing
I regard no-platforming as the right of a democratic organisation (and impossible to prevent anyway)
And I think AGD was in this case a bit of a prat and didn't consider the consequences. (something I think he'd probably agree with)
You are quite entitled to your views it is just a pity you can't acknowledge I am entitled to mine, but insist that I must be wrong.

Yes, yes, of course, its me who is taking the opposite view to everybody on here.

Isn't it?

volver of course you are entitled to your own view of AGD's speech. But you seem determined to find anyone else's view at fault. Even the speakers. It seems to smack of desperation to me.
Purgatory is of course only a place where you can reflect and repent your wrongdoing as your sins are expunged.

Doodledog

Posted too soon - your statement about it being 'universities' who have accepted no-platforming seems at odds with your earlier claim that the SU is a separate entity which should not be confused with the universities themselves.

Oh, and can you please explain why you think that some students (eg KB) have the right to decide on behalf of others who should speak?

Under the 1986 Act, if it is thought likely that a meeting may be controversial then it becomes a designated event, and as a consequence subject to additional costs and organisational requirements to ensure that a university fulfils its obligations.
wonkhe.com/blogs/freedom-to-speak-or-freedom-from-harm-the-history-of-no-platform/
The SU is of course an independent organisation but many of their premises are on University sites, which necessarily involves the University in the safety of speakers .Some SU buildings are the property of the University and leased by the Union.

KB was the elected President of the Union. He was messaged by his electorate with complaints about AGD. He acted on those complaints. Should he have ignored them? You can argue that he should have taken longer to decide but Union officials only serve for a year anyway.

Or that hill that Sisyphus was on?

Is this what purgatory's like?

volver

^As I said why continue to support something which even the speaker has repudiated? Simply because one student over reacted and then apologised? Really?^

No, because I have thought about it and have my own view of it. I'm not relying on somebody telling me that AGD was trying to be funny, I've watched it, and he wasn't. If you think he was, you're entitled to your opinion, but you'd be wrong.

Here's something intellectual Galileo had to repudiate what he said about the sun being at the centre of the solar system, and the planets moving around it. He had to say he was wrong. And yet, they move. Sometimes its better to just agree with the people who shout loudest, even if they have got it completely wrong.

Oh really volver resorting to Galileo when the Catholic church was all powerful. I shall have to check has the Cambridge Union condemned anyone, excommunicated them or threatened them with eternal damnation?

As I said why continue to support something which even the speaker has repudiated? Simply because one student over reacted and then apologised? Really?

No, because I have thought about it and have my own view of it. I'm not relying on somebody telling me that AGD was trying to be funny, I've watched it, and he wasn't. If you think he was, you're entitled to your opinion, but you'd be wrong.

Here's something intellectual Galileo had to repudiate what he said about the sun being at the centre of the solar system, and the planets moving around it. He had to say he was wrong. And yet, they move. Sometimes its better to just agree with the people who shout loudest, even if they have got it completely wrong.

Posted too soon - your statement about it being 'universities' who have accepted no-platforming seems at odds with your earlier claim that the SU is a separate entity which should not be confused with the universities themselves.

Oh, and can you please explain why you think that some students (eg KB) have the right to decide on behalf of others who should speak?

Doodledog one of the reasons Universities accepted no platforming was because it relieved them of the huge costs of supervising and protecting speakers students didn't want on site.
Really? What makes you think that? If you can point to anything to back up that assertion, I would be interested to see it, please.