Well it sounds like Liddle the speaker is a twat. What I’m seeing shouldn’t have the professor lose his job but a repremand is in order and perhaps limiting his authority or duties.
Anti freedom activists attempt to force ousting of Principal for allowing someone they didn’t like to speak. Much better, more accurate title.
Anyone who agrees with this crybully mob is proving Liddle’s point.
Defending an avowed racist and bigot means losing your job.
Seems legit to me.
Colleges in Durham University are no more than glorified halls of residence. Are they not allowed to say “I don’t want to be associated with this college and its leaders any more. I’d like to transfer to another college”.
Why do their critics think that freedom should be denied them?
The statement from the Durham Student Union does a very good job of expressing the student’s point of view on this. It is important to understand that the colleges at Durham aren’t teaching institutions, and amount to be being a support network combined with halls of residence. In the first year of university almost everybody lives in halls of residence in their college. I’ll paste the statement below (edit [link](https://www.durhamsu.com/articles/student-officer-statement-on-south-college-formal?fbclid=IwAR2JjO_Ebz8K2fxInSCdMfXz6Tog0X4l11VQ5ZF26DdQL7dN8SIMKuzlC00) here because I can’t seem to format properly on my phone )
The Principal of South college has insulted and humiliated the student members of the College. Tim Luckhurst, the former editor of a national newspaper, knew exactly what he was doing when he hijacked a Christmas party and allowed his personal friend to spout vile propaganda he knew would cause division. His shameful attempt to excuse this pantomime by pretending it was for the benefit of students’ education is disgraceful. He has failed in his duty of care as Principal to South College students, and as a leader in our University community.
Inviting your friend to deliberatively provoke and shock students in their own home is a violation of their community. South students who were enjoying their Christmas celebrations were compromised by their Principal, who prioritised his own political agenda over their interests. Attempts to spin this act as a progressive strike for ‘education’ is an insult to every student and actual academic at Durham. This is hazing, pure and simple; a straightforward abuse of power, which Luckhurst knew would provoke those who refused to silently submit to his theatrical brand of bullying to stand up, and face his insults. We fully stand by our students who exercised their freedom of speech rights to leave this sorry excuse for an ‘education’. We are also grateful to the very many academics at Durham, and beyond, who are calling out this attempt to corrupt their professional reputation for selfish reasons.
The Principal’s attempts to frame his calculated behaviour within the freedom of speech discourse is disingenuous, and does a disservice to those genuinely fighting threats to academic freedom across the world. We will challenge the Acting Vice-Chancellor on how it could ever be procedurally correct for a Principal to take it upon himself to ruin a Christmas party because his ‘right’ to ‘educate’ students was more important than their right to just enjoy their dinner, with friends, in their home. The students at South College deserve a proper apology, not just self-aggrandising quotes from Orwell.
We must also acknowledge the, at best inappropriate and at worst antagonistic, behaviour by the Principal’s wife. Guests in our community are expected to respect our community. Our Colleges are not battlegrounds for childish belittlement; they are learning communities, and respect is fundamental to learning.
We have read a lot about the Principal’s ‘rights’ over the weekend. We have seen little recognition of his responsibilities. We ask that our community therefore focuses not on the distraction he has invited, but rather on the standards we should expect of a College Principal compared to the behaviour we have seen. Watch the videos of Friday night. Read the testimony of students who were present and the statements of our College representatives and SU Associations. This is not the behaviour of a man we want educating, leading and supporting our students.
Durham’s problematic culture is endemic. This is not an isolated event, but a result of a longstanding failure to properly address unacceptable behaviour. We have welcomed the recent commitments and efforts from the University leadership to tackle the historic problems, and this incident shows that the change needed extends beyond policy and into culture. This is a test for all of us. If we accept this style of leading a College as normal then what we saw on Friday will become the norm.
Notwithstanding any other positive things done at South College, Tim Luckhurst’s position at Durham is untenable. No Principal gets to abuse their students, call them pathetic, and then attack them for wanting to just be safe in their home. The Principal of South College’s position as an intellectual and pastoral leader is now a threat, not an asset, to our collegiate community.
We must make clear our commitment to our values, and demonstrate our anger that this response has been necessary, so we encourage all students, staff, and supporters to contact the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (College and Student Experience) to make their views known. The events of Friday are acknowledged as unacceptable, and we must now have the wider conversation about what we expect of our leaders, and the conversation must be bigger than the misdeeds of one stubborn man.
Finally, in situations like these, when someone is in the wrong but convinced of their ‘rights’, it can be incredibly easy to help them make themselves a martyr. Our community can’t afford to have someone who so clearly offends our values subjected to a rushed or flawed process that lets them claim to be a victim. We have to trust that the University leadership will do the right thing, even though the process won’t be in public and the outcome won’t be immediate. We should rightly be angry at the people who violate the values of our community, but we understand why institutional public statements are cautious in these situations. We’ll judge them on their response and how they demonstrate that Tim Luckhurst is not untouchable.
I don’t know much about Liddle. What is it about him that we can’t win the argument through debate, but instead try to silence him? According to the article, he mentioned the biological aspect of the transgender debate, which isn’t offensive in the slightest. A transgender woman is usually a biological male, no controversy there. Student sex workers are an abhorrent thought, never mind practice. No defending him, just not understanding how a man’s career can be out in the line over this? It just makes UK Universities less attractive if everyone is stepping on egg shells all of the time
I remember the days when students said “He is a complete prick who talks out of his arse” and that would be the end of the matter. This whole debacle proves the whole argument about how cancel culture and intolerance has gotten completely out of hand. Pathetic is exactly the word that should be used to describe the student’s actions.
Oh no, some views frighten me. Rather than debating them, I will shut the speaker and all their associates down.
These kids are going to get shredded once they leave uni.
Wait, they want someone to *lose his job* because he invited someone with controversial opinions to speak at their university?
Haven’t we spent the past 100+ years fighting hard to prevent workers being sacked on a whim?
10 comments
Full article – https://archive.md/lYBUh
Well it sounds like Liddle the speaker is a twat. What I’m seeing shouldn’t have the professor lose his job but a repremand is in order and perhaps limiting his authority or duties.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/dec/09/durham-head-steps-back-after-calling-students-pathetic-at-rod-liddle-event
Anti freedom activists attempt to force ousting of Principal for allowing someone they didn’t like to speak. Much better, more accurate title.
Anyone who agrees with this crybully mob is proving Liddle’s point.
Defending an avowed racist and bigot means losing your job.
Seems legit to me.
Colleges in Durham University are no more than glorified halls of residence. Are they not allowed to say “I don’t want to be associated with this college and its leaders any more. I’d like to transfer to another college”.
Why do their critics think that freedom should be denied them?
The statement from the Durham Student Union does a very good job of expressing the student’s point of view on this. It is important to understand that the colleges at Durham aren’t teaching institutions, and amount to be being a support network combined with halls of residence. In the first year of university almost everybody lives in halls of residence in their college. I’ll paste the statement below (edit [link](https://www.durhamsu.com/articles/student-officer-statement-on-south-college-formal?fbclid=IwAR2JjO_Ebz8K2fxInSCdMfXz6Tog0X4l11VQ5ZF26DdQL7dN8SIMKuzlC00) here because I can’t seem to format properly on my phone )
The Principal of South college has insulted and humiliated the student members of the College. Tim Luckhurst, the former editor of a national newspaper, knew exactly what he was doing when he hijacked a Christmas party and allowed his personal friend to spout vile propaganda he knew would cause division. His shameful attempt to excuse this pantomime by pretending it was for the benefit of students’ education is disgraceful. He has failed in his duty of care as Principal to South College students, and as a leader in our University community.
Inviting your friend to deliberatively provoke and shock students in their own home is a violation of their community. South students who were enjoying their Christmas celebrations were compromised by their Principal, who prioritised his own political agenda over their interests. Attempts to spin this act as a progressive strike for ‘education’ is an insult to every student and actual academic at Durham. This is hazing, pure and simple; a straightforward abuse of power, which Luckhurst knew would provoke those who refused to silently submit to his theatrical brand of bullying to stand up, and face his insults. We fully stand by our students who exercised their freedom of speech rights to leave this sorry excuse for an ‘education’. We are also grateful to the very many academics at Durham, and beyond, who are calling out this attempt to corrupt their professional reputation for selfish reasons.
The Principal’s attempts to frame his calculated behaviour within the freedom of speech discourse is disingenuous, and does a disservice to those genuinely fighting threats to academic freedom across the world. We will challenge the Acting Vice-Chancellor on how it could ever be procedurally correct for a Principal to take it upon himself to ruin a Christmas party because his ‘right’ to ‘educate’ students was more important than their right to just enjoy their dinner, with friends, in their home. The students at South College deserve a proper apology, not just self-aggrandising quotes from Orwell.
We must also acknowledge the, at best inappropriate and at worst antagonistic, behaviour by the Principal’s wife. Guests in our community are expected to respect our community. Our Colleges are not battlegrounds for childish belittlement; they are learning communities, and respect is fundamental to learning.
We have read a lot about the Principal’s ‘rights’ over the weekend. We have seen little recognition of his responsibilities. We ask that our community therefore focuses not on the distraction he has invited, but rather on the standards we should expect of a College Principal compared to the behaviour we have seen. Watch the videos of Friday night. Read the testimony of students who were present and the statements of our College representatives and SU Associations. This is not the behaviour of a man we want educating, leading and supporting our students.
Durham’s problematic culture is endemic. This is not an isolated event, but a result of a longstanding failure to properly address unacceptable behaviour. We have welcomed the recent commitments and efforts from the University leadership to tackle the historic problems, and this incident shows that the change needed extends beyond policy and into culture. This is a test for all of us. If we accept this style of leading a College as normal then what we saw on Friday will become the norm.
Notwithstanding any other positive things done at South College, Tim Luckhurst’s position at Durham is untenable. No Principal gets to abuse their students, call them pathetic, and then attack them for wanting to just be safe in their home. The Principal of South College’s position as an intellectual and pastoral leader is now a threat, not an asset, to our collegiate community.
We must make clear our commitment to our values, and demonstrate our anger that this response has been necessary, so we encourage all students, staff, and supporters to contact the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (College and Student Experience) to make their views known. The events of Friday are acknowledged as unacceptable, and we must now have the wider conversation about what we expect of our leaders, and the conversation must be bigger than the misdeeds of one stubborn man.
Finally, in situations like these, when someone is in the wrong but convinced of their ‘rights’, it can be incredibly easy to help them make themselves a martyr. Our community can’t afford to have someone who so clearly offends our values subjected to a rushed or flawed process that lets them claim to be a victim. We have to trust that the University leadership will do the right thing, even though the process won’t be in public and the outcome won’t be immediate. We should rightly be angry at the people who violate the values of our community, but we understand why institutional public statements are cautious in these situations. We’ll judge them on their response and how they demonstrate that Tim Luckhurst is not untouchable.
I don’t know much about Liddle. What is it about him that we can’t win the argument through debate, but instead try to silence him? According to the article, he mentioned the biological aspect of the transgender debate, which isn’t offensive in the slightest. A transgender woman is usually a biological male, no controversy there. Student sex workers are an abhorrent thought, never mind practice. No defending him, just not understanding how a man’s career can be out in the line over this? It just makes UK Universities less attractive if everyone is stepping on egg shells all of the time
I remember the days when students said “He is a complete prick who talks out of his arse” and that would be the end of the matter. This whole debacle proves the whole argument about how cancel culture and intolerance has gotten completely out of hand. Pathetic is exactly the word that should be used to describe the student’s actions.
Oh no, some views frighten me. Rather than debating them, I will shut the speaker and all their associates down.
These kids are going to get shredded once they leave uni.
Wait, they want someone to *lose his job* because he invited someone with controversial opinions to speak at their university?
Haven’t we spent the past 100+ years fighting hard to prevent workers being sacked on a whim?