Hello everyone.
At the beginning of this episode I spoke very briefly about an event I am co-organising on Israel/Palestine where we are trying to bring people together to discuss a difficult and sensitive issue. I will be posting more about this shortly, but in the meantime you can find out more and book a free ticket here.
On this episode of The Critical Sceptic podcast I want to talk through an interaction I have had recently with the head of Diversity Equity and Inclusion for the Philosophy Psychology and Language Sciences (PPLS) school at the University of Edinburgh.
Last Thursday, I received an email sent to all undergraduate and postgraduate students about a series of events that have been organised around LGBT+ history month. Now, I have no issue with the events themselves, people can do what they want. What I objected to was the implication that to show solidarity and to celebrate this group of people was to attend these events. I sent the following as a reply to all which included the mailing lists for undergraduates and postgraduates for PPLS:
“If we do not attend, will this be taken as evidence of the discrimination you speak of?
Members and supporters of this community (not all but some) have intentionally sought to infringe upon students and faculties academic freedom and freedom of speech on a university campus. I am referring to the twice cancelled attempts to screen the movie Adult Human Female. This is talking heads documentary discussing the claims of this community and the impact these claims in practice can have on women. A perfectly debatable topic which anyone could have come and engaged in, instead it was preferable to shut the screening down.
From the attempted screening in April. These young men and women physically prevented students, staff, and members of the public - including the elderly - from gaining access to the screening so it had to be called off because there was no safe means of accessing the lecture hall.
From the third and successful attempt to screen the movie. Two versions of a poster that was hung up around George Square encouraging others to join them in shutting down speech on campus "we can do it again".
It was successfully screened after internal and external security were brought in, fencing was put up and the presence of police officers were deployed to ensure that members of this oppressed community didn't use their "oppressed" status to enjoy the privilege of being able to cry wolf and use the veneer of being on the side of the dispossessed to get away with childish and intolerant behaviour.
It is quite the privilege that people who align themselves with this movement can behave in such an intolerant way in the name of tolerance. Which they justify by calling such a screening intolerance they must be intolerant of.
We do not have to agree with one another, but this kind of tyrannical behaviour from members of, and people claiming to be on the side of, a supposed oppressed group is silly.
I will not be attending any of these events and I feel genuinely sorry for the people who wish to identify as they please and be left alone that they have people like this speaking on their behalf. They deserve better.
I love you all as human beings, but this is another example of how radical ideologies use marginal groups for their own purposes, make things worse, and then move on when your issue no longer gains traction. DEI is a failing praxis that has consistently done more harm than good and is used to smuggle in radical Marxian consciousness raising. We all deserve better than this, especially from an educational institute many of us are paying for.
Hope everyone has a great weekend!
Matthew Brown.”
Several people complained about this email claiming it was offensive, bullying, and humiliating despite the attempts I have made to make clear that I am talking about a subset of a subset of the university population.
Anyway, this resulted in the head of DEI for PPLS, Barry McGuire requesting an informal resolution to the problematic expression of my opinion. There is a chain of emails between us that led to this meeting and in this episode I read through them, talk about the meeting we had and we read through the Dignity and Respect policy which I have been encouraged to “express [my] commitment to adhering to the terms and the spirit” of this policy.
This one is about 2 hours so thanks for sticking with it if you do.
Please leave a comment and let me know your thoughts. Am I in the wrong? Could I have conducted myself better? Does the universities policies encourage or stifle disagreement and difference of opinion? Do these policies favour some and disfavour others despite signifying a commitment to oppose such discrimination?
Share this post