To Galaxy - that's a fair post. I do sometimes get frustrated with what feels like you making vague statements that appear to position you as having the right to steer the conversation without giving your own views, but I agree that we need to allow all kinds of free speech.
Maybe my irritation is also that you don't seem to accept that you're not the only person to feel that way? If you sometimes gave your point of view, rather than a 'you are all biased' comment it would help, but I am fully aware that my viewpoint doesn't matter to you
.
To be very bleak I see absolutely no way to move forward in the general discussion (I don't mean on GN but rather out in the real world)
I can't honestly disagree here, either, unfortunately. I'm not saying it is unfortunate that we agree, but that it's unfortunate that there are entrenched views that I see as racist (the awful 'race card'/'only got the job because he is black' ones) and the free speech and 'right to investigate whatever needs investigating ones'. Both are right, IMO, yet they don't sit well together.
I also believe that there is a massive yet unacknowledged difference between what is in the public interest and what interests the public, and this case seems to me to be in the latter camp.
One academic in one university is not remotely responsible for the education of the youth of today. Even students on the courses he teaches on (very few, probably, at Professor level) won't suffer from any shortfalls in his teaching abilities. In my (humbler, but extensive) experience, the odds are that he would find that his modules would be avoided if they were badly taught, so his influence would be relatively low.
That is in no way to excuse any misconduct. If he is proved to be guilty he should be dismissed, and I've never said otherwise.
But should he be reviled in the press and social media? I don't think so, and 'What about Mandelson/Flack/Dolezal?' won't change that point of view, as they are very different cases.
My feelings on this are that professors are ordinary people doing ordinary jobs (unlike 'celebrities') and don't deserve to have their lives ripped apart as JA's was - by the Guardian or any other paper - unless there is a victim. Maybe looking at the Russell Brand case is a reasonable comparison? There, there were victims, yet there were also numerous 'innocent until proven guilty' comments from what seems to me to be the same 'camp' who have denigrated Jason Arday. Same with Phillip Schofield.