Mustelids in journalism
The Guardian has a weaselly piece on the Sussex snafu.
Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor targeted by activists for her views on gender identification, has said she fears her career at Sussex University has been “effectively ended” by a union’s call for an investigation into transphobia.
No, she hasn’t, that’s not what she said. If you can’t even get the lede right, take a sick day so that someone else can do it. The “she fears” part is sheer invention.
Sussex’s chapter of the University and College Union (UCU) has urged the university’s management to “take a clear and strong stance against transphobia at Sussex”, and undertake an investigation into “institutional transphobia”.
Yes but it said a lot more than that, and that particular summary makes the Sussex UCU statement sound much more reasonable and even-handed than it is.
However, the university said it would not agree to the union’s call for an investigation.
A University of Sussex spokesperson said: “We have acted – and will continue to act – firmly and promptly to tackle bullying and harassment, to defend the fundamental principle of academic freedom, to support our community and continue to progress our work on equality, diversity and inclusion. We care deeply about getting this balance right.”
The bullying and harassment were done to Stock, not by her. The Guardian probably knows this, but didn’t spell it out in the article. This is why I call it weaselly.
After last week’s protest, Adam Tickell, Sussex’s vice-chancellor, gave public support to Stock, saying: “We cannot and will not tolerate threats to cherished academic freedoms and will take any action necessary to protect the rights of our community.”
But the Sussex UCU statement, signed by the branch’s executive, said the university’s leaders had failed to “uphold the institution’s stated values by ensuring that the dignity and respect of trans and non-binary staff and students, and their allies, are enshrined at the core of the university’s culture”.
The Guardian doesn’t pause to ask why the dignity and respect of trans and non-binary staff and students and their allies should be enshrined at the core of the university’s culture. It doesn’t pause to ask why trans people should be treated as the most urgent social and political issue of the time, and the most deserving of exaggerated respect and coddling and worship.
It added: “We do not endorse the call for any worker to be summarily sacked and we oppose all forms of bullying, harassment, and intimidation of staff and students.”
Says the Guardian, as if that were a generous concession. The Guardian can’t be so stupid that it doesn’t spot the obvious trap. It would spot it in a heartbeat if it were Boris Johnson saying it about someone else. The UCU doesn’t endorse summary firing but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t endorse non-summary firing. That one word “summarily” is their escape clause. The Guardian has to know that perfectly well. Fucking weasels.
From my reading of the exchange, it seemed Stock was worried about her career not so much because there could be an investigation, but because the union had openly called for her management to ‘take action’ against her rather than against the students setting off flares on campus.
Meanwhile, Stock’s twitter account has been deleted.
Oh, I now read in Ophelia’s next post that the account was not deleted, it was taken down by Kathleen herself.
I think; I don’t know that for sure but it’s my guess. Others are saying the same.
Stock has closed down her Twitter account before when she’s wanted to take a time-out from it. This time-out may last some time given the current circumstances.
Yes, like Titus Oates (but not exactly like), she may be some time.
Mustelids, all or most of them, are wonderfully playful creatures (I suppose one could make exceptions for honey badgers & wolverines, though on better acquaintance they might turn out to be more attractive than they appear to be) – but, yes, the Guardian is ‘weaselly’. It infuriates me that a newspaper that in some ways does a lot of good should so constantly indulge in this craven sitting on the fence, taking care to sit just on the wrong side so that Owen Jones & his pals don’t get upset and waiting to see which way the pendulum will swing.
Stock’s account is back, now. I understand she took it down for a bit of respite (who can blame her?) and because several fake accounts sprang up. I’m not sure why shutting down her account would help with the latter, I’m just repeating what I’ve been told. Perhaps she was just sick of the relentless attacks and was deciding what to do with her account.
I’ve had two messages from the Guardian in the past couple of weeks begging me to send them some money. I won’t, and in addition I’ve decided that I can’t put up with their wokeism any more and I’ve stopped reading it every day. The problem is, where to get a decent news source if not the Guardian?
I do love mustelids – otters, weasels, ferrets. I wish we could think of another sneaky beast. Perhaps the squid fooling with a cloud of ink.
@OB #5 – Titus Oates? You mean Captain Oates. Though Titus Oates was a horrible sneaky person.
#Athel Cornish-Bowden – I bemoan the Guardian on this issue. Given the general frivolity and hysteria of the British press in general, I do appreciate a lot of the Guardian’s serious-mindedness and think I should support them. Then I see a piece by Owen Jones and my heart hardens.
But Captain Oates was called Titus as a nickname wasn’t he? Or am I misremembering?
I too love mustelids. Zookeepers are taught to be very wary of them, no matter how cute. Do not approach.
I think he was called Titus as a nickname.
I had a pet ferret once that I had rescued. An engaging creature, though it left an awful musty smell on your hands.
I should have put quotation marks on the “Titus” – the universal nickname signal.