Seems to me there is a lot of confused nonsense being spouted by the usual suspects about suppressing student protest at Sussex. I'm sure a lawyer will correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me that in this jurisdiction an employer has a clear obligation to protect an employee>
from harassment at their place of work. The student "protest" is clearly harassment of a named individual. If one is charitable & accords the "protestors" any kind of coherent grounds for their harassment it would appear to be their understanding of Stock's beliefs. It has
already been established at an EAT that similar beliefs qualify for protection under EA 2010. If Sussex failed to act to protect Stock it would be failing in its duties. I assume students or anyone else can "protest" all they like off campus, in the middle of Brighton, wherever
they think there is an audience. They can write to the newspapers, write to their MP, write to the VC & anyone else that will listen until the cows come home. They can meet in conclave, sing protest songs, pen ballads, let off smoke flares to their heart's content. But not at the
place of work of a Sussex employee if it is intended to harass that individual. And if you want to quibble about whether it is harassment what do you think would be a suitable descriptor for a demand that someone be summarily deprived of their livelihood?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Colin Mills

Colin Mills Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @OxSoc

17 Sep
Toilet wars. Unisex rooms with single occupancy stalls are touted as a solution. Up to a point. I'm a guy, but if I were a gal I wouldn't be ecstatic. 1) Most guys stand up & have poor spray control so, at the least the stall stinks & at worst you have to wipe up someone else's
piss before you can sit. If I were female I would not see that as an equality enhancing advantage 2) Security. I recently visited a campus with this arrangement. Unisex room with dark entrance enclosed between two corridor fire doors. Enter large room with lots of loitering >>
space. Row of stalls against one wall. It was mid morning & lots of people using it, felt dreary but safe enough. However if it were 7.00pm on a winter night with not many people about & I were a lone female I wouldn't feel safe at all. A couple of dubious looking males
Read 5 tweets
19 Jun
A short thread on how scholars should behave when they think they disagree with something. May be of interest to @LSEGenderTweet. 1) Let's assume me & my mates think there is something wrong with a body of thought - say for instance Gender Critical Feminism. 2) First we might>>
read & think about some of the work that constitutes that body of thought; 3) We would probably discuss it, first informally, perhaps in a seminar, even in a symposium; 4) We'd discover that, because they are not The Borg, different GC scholars believe and maintain somewhat >>
different things. Perhaps they agree about certain basic facts but have quite different attitudes towards those facts & draw somewhat different conclusions about what, if anything should be done in response to them. That's life, because, you know, human variety. 5) We might >>
Read 9 tweets
24 Feb
I imagine the blokia are prepping their, hang on, wait a minute, that's just some random person on the internet who got it wrong thing. If only it was. Here is a professor at a major UK university writing the same in an academic journal.… >>
Read the first paragraph. That's all you have to do. The same untruth, the same strategy of misdirection. And when challenged what do the editors do? Nothing. Some waffle about Popperian debate, only an opinion piece, blah blah. Excuse me, but I thought Popper's point >>
was you attack the strongest point of the rival argument not make up an entirely different argument & attack that. Maybe I'm just not up to date with the latest thinking in the philosophy of science. And then the matter of the discourtesy of not citing the article you >>
Read 6 tweets
20 Feb
I want to tell you a story. It illustrates the low level, but unpleasant hassle faced by academics holding views deemed unacceptable by self-appointed defenders of public safety. I'm not going to name names. I'm not interested in facilitating a pile on. The abused is>>
robust and capable of looking after themself. I was sent a screenshot of the abuser's protected twitter narration of the incident. I've also seen it tweeted on here. I've no idea how it was leaked. I've not seen its authenticity challenged. >>
So to the tale. Dr X organizes a seminar with a symposium panel under the auspices of a Faculty in a large well known UK university. Dr Y who is a member of the university with a legitimate interest in the subject matter of the panel registers to >
Read 20 tweets
19 Feb
A banal thought. The test for the limitation of speech in the public sphere must ultimately be some notion of harm actually or potentially caused. So the important questions are what kinds of harm should we care about, who gets to decide, how do they decide and what sort of >>
evidence and argument is admissible. Arguing about abstract conceptions of free speech or preemptively shouting, "no debate" obscures the constitutional conference type of discussion that might help us deal more rationally with the practical issues. Of course if you are wedded to
a "there is no problem, it's all confected" view then this will seem irrelevant. On the other hand if you're actually faced with the claim that the presence of speaker X on the platform, or even the very idea of speaker X, makes a person or class of persons feel unsafe, then
Read 5 tweets
18 Feb
Things ain't simple. It's perfectly consistent to believe the following: 1) a government appointed free speech czar is a terrible idea & undesirable 2) many members of academia don't notice or feel any restriction on the free expression of their views 3) some members of academia
are subject to systematic campaigns of harassment because of their views, in some cases simply for stating undeniable facts (not "facts") 4) Circulating lengthy public denunciations, calling for someone to be disciplined or fired, deliberately misrepresenting what they say,
encouraging frivolous complaints or boycotts are not normal ways of conducting academic arguments and go far beyond the norms of academic free and fair exchange; 5) Some academics deny that such things take place because it suits them not to see it 6) Some are silent because
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!