Students at a leading London college say the majority of philosophers studied there should be from Africa and Asia, and white thinkers should only be examined “from a critical standpoint” or in a “colonial context”.
Student Union (SU) officials (pictured above) at the world-renowned School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) made the declaration as part of their “Educational Priorities proposed for 2016/17”
With social justice warriors everywhere still sobbing across the globe after sexist, racist, bigoted, mysognist, anti-semite, satan-worshipping, Putin-puppet (did we miss one?) Donald Trump’s election victory, it appears the special safe-space-seekers may be about to get a win in Britain where universities will be forced to pander to the demands of ‘snowflake’ students if controversial reforms placing student satisfaction at the heart of a new ranking system, are approved.
As “safe space” and “no platform” movements have swept across campuses, The Telegraph reports, the Government faces a cross-party revolt in the Lords this week over proposed reforms to higher education, which include placing student satisfaction at the heart of a new ranking system.
It is feared that this will lead to a “fantastically dangerous” culture where authorities will give in to student demands, however unreasonable they may be.
I suppose I’m interested because I spent some 15 years inside universities, many years ago, as student, postgraduate, and research assistant. I was in one at the time of the 1968 student protests. Somehow or other all universities seem to breed radicals of a variety of different flavours of Marxism. They never seem to be found anywhere else. Where do they all come from?
In my time, there were quite a few radical students, but hardly any radical lecturers or professors. But now it seems that the professors are as radical as the students used to be. Or at least that was the conclusion I drew after watching quite a lot of this video, courtesy of Rhys, of a University of Toronto Free Speech Debate:
For as far as I could see, this crazy debate was entirely conducted among university professors. There was barely a student in sight.
Perhaps what’s happened is that the radical students of the late 1960s became radical teachers a few years later, and then went on to become radical professors in radicalised universities.
In my time, all the student radicals were to be found in the humanities departments, like psychology, sociology, philosophy, economics. There were none whatsoever in science and engineering departments. The students in these science departments had come to study science, and that was what they mostly did. The students in the humanities departments seemed to have only gone to university in order to wave placards and go on protest marches – as if this was a rite of passage that was more important than gaining a degree.
There seem to be a number of radicalised universities. Britain has the University of East Anglia (also known as the University of Easy Access, presumably because it was easy to get into) which was hub of the Climategate scandal. America has Penn State university, which is home to Michael Mann, inventor of the hockey stick graph of global warming. But there are plenty of others. Stanton Glantz is in some California university. Robert Proctor is in another university. There are lots and lots of these radical professors. In my time, Herbert Marcuse was a prominent Marxist Californian professor. French universities seem to produce such people in droves. And if there is any characteristic they seem to share, it is not so much a wish to stimulate debate and discussion, but instead to close down all debate, shout people down, and enforce a single orthodoxy of thought (i.e. Political Correctness). And if they write books, as many of them do, they are usually entirely impenetrable and incomprehensible (a literary style of which Marx was a past master, and learned at the feet of Hegel, as I discovered when I just about managed to hack my way through the dense forests of the first 6 chapters of Capital with a machete).
Do we need such universities? Does anyone benefit from the “education” people get inside them? Since many of them are publicly funded, wouldn’t the money be better spent elsewhere – on houses or roads, for example?
I’m all for free speech and enquiry, but universities now seem to have become the very negation of that. So what’s the point of them anymore? Perhaps most of them should just be closed down?