John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

I was just going to post that, as it popped up on social media.

It's the obvious next step, however idiotic it may seem, if people insist on a right not to be offended.

Its popping uop everywhere right now Doodledog Shall I post Stephen Fry's comments about being offended? Ach aye, why not, please don't be offended folks. ?

Chewbacca

Sorry, no can do Callistemon

The decision to ban Professor Selina Todd from an event she helped to organise has been reviewed as part of a “no platforming” investigation by Exeter College.

Professor Todd, who is an expert in the history of working-class women, contributed towards the organisation of the summit to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Ruskin College’s first Women’s Liberation Conference.

Todd gained the support of the university’s history facility to provide funding and facilitators for the event.

The academic was expected to speak at the event on Saturday, however, on the Friday she was informed that her invitation no longer stood.

*Due to her teaching of feminist history and involvement in the advocacy of women’s rights, the Professor has been accused of being a “transphobe".*

Perhaps there will soon be a list, circulated around universities and colleges, indicating not only which subjects / movements / issues are allowed to be discussed, but which wording, phraseology or language, or style, can or cannot be used to discuss such topics. And the academic or speaker will have his / her personal history, publications, pronouncements, etc thoroughly investigated prior to any invitation to ensure that only those who have adhered to the correct narrative are invited to speak.

So debates will be confined within parameters laid down by subjective opinion and taste. Controversial issues will be ignored. There will be no referencing of literature, editorials, publications, chronicles, that don't conform to this narrative by a speaker.

That's the only way to avoid offending. By censorship. No-platforming is censorship.

Funny you should mention comedy being "offensive"volver; just this week Rowan Atkinson has said It’s “comedy’s job to offend” while criticising cancel culture.

The Blackadder, Mr Bean and Johnny English star, who returns to screens in new Netflix series Man vs Bee, shared his view on the subject, stating that comedians should be able to make jokes about “absolutely anything”.

Atkinson, 67, told the Irish Times: “It does seem to me that the job of comedy is to offend, or have the potential to offend, and it cannot be drained of that potential”

I'll stand aside whilst the perpetually offended remind me that no one is entitled to a platform for their individual liberty to express themselves.

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.

Chewbacca

Funny you should mention comedy being "offensive"volver; just this week Rowan Atkinson has said It’s “comedy’s job to offend” while criticising cancel culture.

The Blackadder, Mr Bean and Johnny English star, who returns to screens in new Netflix series Man vs Bee, shared his view on the subject, stating that comedians should be able to make jokes about “absolutely anything”.

Atkinson, 67, told the Irish Times: “It does seem to me that the job of comedy is to offend, or have the potential to offend, and it cannot be drained of that potential”

I'll stand aside whilst the perpetually offended remind me that no one is entitled to a platform for their individual liberty to express themselves.

Other comedians disagree with him. Matt Lucas has said that some of the stuff he did in Little Britain was totally unacceptable. www.nme.com/features/little-britain-blackface-offensive-bbc-2687165
Many others criticised it at the time.

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.

It starts with one and snowballs very quickly, especially with the willingness of so many to be offended at the drop of a hat.
Many who condemned JKR had never read the accounts of her trauma at the hands of an abusive partner, nor read her tweets in any context but they 'knew' she was a bigoted transphobe, because 'everybody knows that'. People can easily be swept along on a tide created by a very few, not just students but older people whose life experience really ought to give them a touch more robust cynicism.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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??....

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

X posted there Callistemon

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.

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.

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.