UKC

I see that student unions still have the same capacity to make people point and laugh at them like they did when I was at uni 20 years ago.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/clappi...

In reply to Cú Chullain:

What about blind people?

In reply to Cú Chullain:

I look forwards to the widespread adoption of silent fire alarms.

In reply to FactorXXX:

They get a poke in the eye from over exuberant jazz hands?

 

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Is facepalming still OK?

In reply to Cú Chullain:

It doesn't cost anything, and it makes their events more accessible to people with mental health issues, so fair play to them.

Meanwhile red-faced middle-aged men who love to moan about snowflakes are, ironically, getting apoplectically angry about something that has no impact whatsoever on their lives. Bonus.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Some students unions form a key training ground and stepping stone on the pathway from a largely irrelevant degree and an unchecked ideology to entry into grown up politics.

That’s why I am - silently - pulling my hair out over this.  Don’t complain to UKC when the same muppets are voting in Komrade Korbyn’s ruling party in 10 years time to ban cheering at football matches.

There is a lot of great autism awareness going on, for example cinema movie screenings with a reasonable volume (I normally take ear plugs to the cinema being a grumpy fart who has carefully preserved his hearing...) etc.  I should have thought a policy against idiotic whooping and cheering at meetings would have been a sensible plan.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

I'd love to see it introduced for the Houses of Parliament as it would stop our most noble representatives sounding like a bunch of tossers.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

It would look like a mass break out from the Jim Henson Creature Workshop

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Well you aren't allowed to clap in the chamber anyway, although some do for big speeches like when Robin Cook resigned so that he could defy the party whip and vote against the second Iraq war.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Those with autism etc may have a different view! It is welcome publicity for a difficult area.

Good on them for trying something different. Most of us recognise that change usually comes from the younger generation,.

Just wished millenials would stop discarding litter at music festivals.....

In reply to gethin_allen:

Yes but the article says that whooping noises are also banned, and it is noise in general that they are minimising, so this would stop all the stupid noises they make during speeches.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Journos trawling through stuff trying to find stories/headlines which will elicit reactionary responses from the tutters.

I'm fighting hard - though I have reached 50 this year.  I'm wanting to tut and sneer more and more, but the sensible younger me is still able to fight off these urges in the main and enable me to stop being a full on grumpy DM type reactionary tw@t.

Although.... any mention of 'Jazz hands' makes me want to retch,  and whooping and hollering in any case is simply not on ; )  We are not the United States yet !

 

Stevie Wonder just tweeted that he's not sure if anyone turned up at his Manchester University gig.

In reply to neilh:

You realise that the people at university now aren't millenials*, right? That generation's all grown up now.

*By many/most definitions

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

I always said i wouldn't accept that sort of behaviour from the kids at youth club...

 

In reply to neilh:

I am broadly in agreement with this and it's a nice initiative to help people who normally wouldn't attend certain events to be able to attend - however there was an interview on the BBC with someone who has autism and does get freaked out by clapping who has of the opinion that it isn't that helpful because it doesn't fix the problem for events outside of the SU.  Her thought is that it would be more helpful to educate people about the effects of noise on individuals with sensory issues and about recognising when someone might be having a panic attack in that situation and how to help them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-45729031

Of course, hers is not the only opinion...

In reply to Cú Chullain:

It's like a game of "Simon-says" with these sorts.  Except the punishment for not adhering to their ever faster pronouncements can be a direct threat to your livelihood and real social exclusion.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Don't really know whether to laugh or cry.  Admittedly this is from the US, but if Universities pride themselves on being animated about social issues, it would be nice if they looked at themselves and the culture they are breeding  -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k&feature=youtu.be

"We rewrote a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional-feminism and this journal has accepted it"

https://quillette.com/2018/10/01/the-grievance-studies-scandal-five-academi...

In reply to Pan Ron:

Sorry, I'm not really seeing what this has to do with a students' union wanting to make it easier for people suffering from autism and other mental health issues to take part in student life.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Clapping sounds and feels different to people with sensory difficulties which are often found with autism.  A large echoing room with lots of people clapping is actually quite physically painful for many autistic people.  

 

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Peripheral to the issue in that just slapping the label 'progressive' on something appears to grant unquestioning acceptance in certain, rarefied circles.

In the case of the OP, banning clapping is branded progressive in that it promotes social inclusion, but screw those subsequently excluded due to impaired vision or automatic emetic response at the sight of jazz hands.

In reply to marsbar:

I sympathise and admittedly know little about sensory impacts on the autistic, but are ear plugs not an option? The auditory response provided by clapping gives a vital cue as to the crowd response at, say, a concert or party conference, both to the visually impaired and to those listening to the radio. It seems that MU's preference for jazz hands benefits one minority at the expense of other minorities.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

The problem is, in making life better for one minority, what about the impact on the others?  What are the views of blind people on this?  

In seeking to look after the 62 autistic people in 10,000, and the rare events when those people encounter clapping, and the presumably even rarer event where that has an adverse impact on them, society must change. 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and it seems in university SUs, one-person's claim to "good intentions" is all that is required to demand change.  The relevance is a lack of self-examination.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Seems reasonable.  But you'd have to be putting them in and out between listening to what's going on and clapping.  

Personally I think it's a bit of a red herring and designing or adapting buildings with appropriate accoustics  is far more sensible.  

In reply to Pan Ron:

Proper accoustic design could make things better without any disdvantage to others.  

In reply to Pan Ron:

I'm not sure where you got that figure from.  1 in 60 is around the national figure.  In Manchester where there are a disproportionate number of students studying Engineering etc the figure could easily be twice that.  Given that many high functioning adults are not diagnosed until they have children if at all the real figure could be easily be higher.  

In reply to FactorXXX:

I can't be certain but I imagine if you rely on hearing instead of sight to know what is going on its probably quite annoying if people are clapping and being noisy while you are trying to listen to what's going on or where you are.  

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Would gesticulating with jazz mags, rather than hands, not be more effective as a sign of collective approval?

Not only would it be visually striking, the gentle wafting of the pages (assuming they’re not stuck together) would provide a soft, non-threatening, audible cue for those hard of sight.

Feels like a solution to me. 

In reply to marsbar:

In the case of party conferences, debates and many types of concert, a high degree of audience response is a large part of the overall experience and the yard stick by which the effectiveness or approval of those on stage is judged.

In such cases clapping isn't obscuring what's going on, it's part of what's going on.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Although the report says the decision relates only to senate and debates in which trying to include all students is the reason.  If im honest if you took it all the way up to a big conference, imagine how much better speeches would be and how much more effective the speaker would be, if we broke away from the small soundbite sentences then pause for applause rubbish. 

 

 

In reply to Bellie:

I understand what you’re saying but I just don’t agree. At that level the aim is to form consensus or draw people to your way of thinking. A well crafted speech seeks to elicit a response and allows space for reaction. Similarly, a skilled orator really does play a crowd.

From the point of view of the run of the mill, joe public, conference goer, why bother going to all the expense of attending if not to have your ‘voice’ (clapping) heard from the floor?

In reply to Stichtplate:

They are being asked to react in a specific way, not to avoid reacting altogether.   

Presumably one can play the crowd just as easily for waves instead of claps. 

 

In reply to Cú Chullain:

When I was a student in Manchester I found not clapping for the SU came naturally.  The only thing I was naturally better at was avoiding people with petitions.

In reply to marsbar: 

Maybe suggest that to David Blunkett.

In reply to wintertree:

That seems a bit reactionary?

In reply to Timmd:

I take your point.  I should be a lot more reactionary...

In reply to wintertree:

I'm a little bit puzzled by 'unchecked ideology' and how that relates to people switching from clapping to jazz hands - is it a case of jazz hands leading inexorably to socialism?

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Another point off view.  A few times I’ve been lucky enough to be on the receiving end of a highly enthusiastic round of applause from a room full of people (perhaps because I’d stopped talking).  

It’s great.  It’s a really nice thank you gesture.  Whereas if they’d all done jazz hands I’d be trying not to piss myself with laughter.  

There’s definitely something deeper in human nature about audience applause than a social convention.  Look at the enjoyment of pantomimes or the reaction to a good show.  Banning deeper human nature is never good.  

Like I said, I’m all for sensible applause and not overly American whooping and hollering and mid-speech applauses.  A combination of making that clear, having sensible acoustic design in lecture theatres and conference halls and having a statement to participants that “applause is common at the end of a session” to forewarn individuals seems like a set of “reasonable adjustments” to me.  Jazz hands does not.

In reply to Timmd:

I think you are reading to many specifics into a very general rant!  Mind you I did wonder if this is a Russian ploy to make us all afraid of loud noises so eventually they just have to shout at us a lot and we capitualte.  

In reply to wintertree: My Dad used to take audiences through doing 'a smattering' 'a ripple' and 'a tumult' when beginning conferences where a number of people were going to speak. Maybe asking people to stick to a ripple could be a plan...

 

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Autism is not a “mental health issue”.  It really isn’t.  I’ll leave it to the internet and google to make the case to you.

In reply to wintertree:

Thumbs up for that - but neither the article nor the statement actually mention autism.

"The union say the loud noise created by clapping, including whooping and traditional applause, can pose an issue for students with disabilities such as anxiety or sensory issues."

Anxiety and sensory issues are common among those with autism, but not everyone with autism has severe sensory issues, not all of those who do have hypersensitivity to sound (indeed some have hyposensitivity and may actively seek out loud environments), and anxiety and sensory issues are not restricted to people with autism.

I do think it's an overreaction, though - good intentions taken too far.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

I'm not convinced of the argument that this change excludes blind people. I don't imagine they are much more fond of loud clapping than I am of a bright strobe lights in my eyes. 

Also a blind person 'missing out' on an audible cue of applause does not necessarily equal or outweigh what may be a painful experience for someone else. 

If this is a real problem then I commend the effort to find a solution that if we're being honest, whilst a little odd, is free and doesn't actively harm anyone else. 

In reply to FreshSlate: Yeah, on here there seems to be a sentiment of 'What's coming next?' behind the less favourable reactions to this.  

I can't see why it might disadvantage blind people too.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

What I find curious is that 99.9% of the time it is the young left wingers in the audiences who feel the need to clap over enthusiastically, shout, heckle etc.. during most editions of question time or any questions. The recent Manchester edition of AQ was no different. If only they could live by their own standards all the time. 

Edit. It seems like it is the slow death of human gestures. First the hand shake, now clapping.. What next, no eye contact and we all have to pretend we are Londoners. 

In reply to Timmd:

Perhaps reflect on how being unable to gauge audience response might have impacted the careers of these people..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Blind_politicians

.. then extrapolate to all the other roles out there that demand public speaking.

In reply to FreshSlate:

My uncle was what I would call mildly autistic. Who knows where he would have sat on the spectrum as he was born in a mining village in the 40s, so was destined for a shit education and simple factory job where he was taken advantage of by the management and given all the naff tasks. He was a dab hand at model building and anything infinitely small and tedious, so probably missed out on doing something more meaningful.

But he had no issue with noise. He would often go to football matches, loved a trip to newcastle etc.. perhaps many with autism will also dislike these measures being introduced on their behalf.

It is along the lines of taking offence on behalf others which is a common theme. I guess students have finished demanding that all the statues of not so nice historical figures be pulled down and have moved onto something else to fill their 3-4 years of free time. 

In reply to summo:

Interesting point.

When attempts at 'no platforming' a speaker have failed it seems to be a common tactic at universities to turn up at the scheduled debate / speech and make as much noise as possible rendering it impossible for the event to continue. I guess next time Germaine Greer or Milo Yiannopoulos try to give a university talk they should stack the audience with autistic and anxiety sufferers.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

When I was in primary school we clapped with two fingers to keep the noise down. Maybe this is a sensible compromise.

Perhaps MUSU could also provide small bottles of warm milk and give all students a jelly baby on their birthday.

As an aside, this is nothing new, if the posters that abounded on campus were anything to go by my SU was trying hard to eradicate the clap 25yrs ago.

In reply to summo:

This might sound a little crazy but, maybe the people making noise at the Manchester AQ are different people than those who have contributed to this decision by the student union. So both sets of people are in fact living by their own standards by acting in this way.

Don't let common sense get in the way of a rant against 'young left wingers' though.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't.

Don't worry it won't. I'm sure the heckling will continue until they mature and learn some manners on how to behave when others are talking.  

In reply to Bellie:

 

 

Known as " Wankee Doodle Dandy Syndrome".

In reply to summo:

Having been to uni in 2000 and 2016, I can assure you that students these days work a lot harder than they did just 20 years ago. The introduction of fees and increased competition for jobs means the current generation of students and graduates is more focussed, harder working and more driven than those who came before. 

This generation will be in charge when you need your bum wiped and I am absolutely sure they will look after you with a generosity and spirit that isn't afforded them today. Would it hurt you to show some respect?

So you don't share their values? So what? 

 

In reply to summo:

They think they are progressive but don't realise that no clapping has been happening for months now at old trafford

In reply to XXXX:

I guess it depends on what subject you are studying and at what institution. Twenty years ago I was studying engineering and working my bollocks off with over 35 hours contact time (lectures, labs, tutorials, seminars etc) a week plus all the other reading and assignment work on top of that. Strolling into a seminar or tutorial unprepared resulted in you looking like a tw*t in front of your peers. Non attendance was recorded and if it dropped below below a certain % you were booted off the course.

I appreciate this is anecdotal but I have quite a few friends and family in academia and the general consensus they have is that with the introduction of fees is that many students now see themselves as customers and think that they are buying a degree rather then earning one. Any failing on their part is imminently the fault of institution/lecturer/tutor etc. Student satisfaction feedback forms are the bane of their lives as they have been criticised for not handing out ready prepared lecture notes, making lectures 'exciting' enough or placing demands that students should actually read the recommended texts. They have even had mummy or daddy on the phone demanding extensions to missed deadlines. Mind you these criticisms were levied at mostly at humanities students.

 

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Life would be boring without these sort of things from students. 

In reply to XXXX:

I've taught at Uni since 1984 and my experience is if anything, the work ethic of the majority has declined slowly over the years and noticably dropped a step after 9k fees came in. This step change was a noticable increase in students who feel entitled to a degree and too many of these are shocked when departments retain standards that are different to their expectations, being outraged that they can fail, even after hardly ever turning up to class (even in a few of those cases when classes are 'compulsory',  being assessed).  A significant minority of students work as hard as any ever did (but too often now have to spend time earning money rather than focussing on their studies). In contrast in the old days I saw many more examples of poor student support and treatment... its much better and fairer these days, especially where disputes arise (fortunate as the number of complaints has increased a lot recently due to that feeling of entitlement).

In reply to neilh:

Have to confess I am curious as to what a mass 'Jazz Hands' applause looks like, I'm sure it will pop on youtube soon.

In reply to Offwidth and Cú Chullain:

Chiming in to ageee with your comments.  

The whole system seems over constrained to the point of compromise in my view.

Sector wide growth fuelled by debt supported by student numbers, students attracted off the back of league tables derived from student satisfaction surveys, perceived (and latterly financially real) consumer status vs academic standards, lack of clarity about a universitiy’s teaching purpose on the spectrum between pure learning and pure employability, the perception that ones career is over without a 2:1, an incessant drip-drip-drip of students challenging marking decisions, students choosing academically tough courses because of employability not actual personal interest, the need to have an “experience” that appears to consist of getting lashed and running amok in inappropriate fancy dress costumes, ........

In reply to wintertree:

I'd argue HE in the UK has always been broken and mainly due to factors outwith it's control. When I went to Uni it was more elitist than say Europe (but improving) and in some respects, despite mass increase in participation, its not changed (pretty much all middle class kids go to Uni now and the highest ranked institutions are still dreadful for the low proportion of bright kids from disadvantaged backgrounds). When I started teaching at a Poly we focused on employability (so its nothing new), without compromising degree academic rigour or professional standards on our accredited courses  (broadly the same as now although standards have dropped a bit, mainly as hard STEM A levels were diluted in quality (Coventy did some research based on standardised A level Math entry tests that showed what was a C had moved over two decades to A/B border) and BTEC normalised thier syllabi to a lowest common denominator (we used to get some amazing ND/NC standards in the late 80s at entry, esp from S Wales). In contrast the scope of qualifications has broadened (esp in IT and professional, ethical and regulatory areas), staff workloads have more than doubled (in teaching facing SSR terms) and students are under way more pressure than they were back then (but better supported in that).

The brits are educational snobs and we would do well to look at places like Finland if we want to improve, instead we ape the disaster area that is the US (where only the ridiculously expensive elite institutions seem to function well , although the US is better at improving diversity than we are).

In reply to Cú Chullain:

I remember my old head master at primary school getting us to do 2-finger clapping - i.e. 2 fingers of one hand on the palm of the other. Much quieter overall, but you still get the same effect.

I was at a wedding once and sat next to a girl that slipped out of the side door whenever the organ player got busy for a hymn - explained as being very sensitive to noise.

In reply to XXXX:

Did you bite?

Respect is earned. Plenty time for that to happen when they mature though. 

So what indeed. I'm still allowed an opinion just because it doesn't match theirs. 

In reply to Stichtplate:

They manage in the house of commons okay? 

In reply to summo:

Your post seems to be saying 'All these left wingers are the same, and if some left wingers are doing what other left wingers are asking people not to do, within the confines of a university establishment, it makes left wingers as an amorphous group, who all think and believe in the same things, hypocritical' ?

 

In reply to Timmd:

No, it's saying a bunch young left wing people in manchester banned clapping at a uni this week, but a similar bunch think it's acceptable to shout and heckle whilst part of an audience at AQ in manchester, even when other people are talking. Are both sides right or wrong. I'd say both are wrong. 

In reply to summo:

"a similar bunch". well in your opinion as you have no idea who agreed this. 

 

In reply to summo:

''If only they could live by their own standards all the time.''

Ah, I was misled by 'they'. Leave voters, and right wingers have booed and heckled and clapped too, all people do. It's human nature. 

In reply to summo:

I was there and I don't recall any shouting and heckling.  It was amazingly quiet.
It did sound a lot louder on the radio when I listened back later though.

 

In reply to Timmd:

Probably because auditory response is far from muted in the house of commons. 

 

In reply to XXXX:

Really not sure you can say that.  I think it would be fair to say that students these days are substantially different from the ones 20 years ago, that it has become a mass market, that there has been a proliferation of degrees graded on highly subjective scoring systems and which require very little effort.  The later are the default home for a large proportion of UK students who simply "need a degree" but lack the grades and abilities to undertake more career-focused degrees.  From personal experience in social-science, I can assure you it is quite difficult not to graduate without at least a 2:2 while undertaking very little work and with very little contact time.

Campus-based social activism does seem to be a convenient alternative to study and attainment. Especially in a "colonised" curriculum which emphasises a scientific method overly based on the work of "old white men" and a history of "slavery and oppression". 

 

In reply to Pan Ron:

Do you think it could be something to do with social-science? A professor I know once commented 'Many employers see a 2:2 as a fail'. I guess it depends on the university, too? A relative went to Cambridge, and that seems like a very rigorous university indeed. 

Well, but, you see, there 'are' women scientists who have had their male colleagues take recognition for their work, and who have been forgotten about...

In reply to Timmd:

"'Many employers see a 2:2 as a fail'. I guess it depends on the university, too?"

 

It very much depends on the university. I have no problem interviewing graduates and other candidates with 2.2 degrees who are the alumni of certain departments. I don't just include red brick universities in that criteria, there are some excellent former polys producing very good graduates out there. 

In reply to Pan Ron:

I really don't think you can compare a mickey mouse degree in social sciences with a real degree in a proper subject.  

 

In reply to Lusk:

That's curious. Because just about every week he has to remind the audience to politely shut up. 

In reply to marsbar: It doesn't quite sound like all social science degrees are equal. A friend of a friend from abroad did her sociology degree at a Sheffield university, and is now employed there towards making education more accessible to working class white people and people from ethnic minorities. Her parents wanted her to be a doctor or a lawyer or similar, but are now impressed by what she does, and understand what it has lead to. I would think she has gone onto PHD level before getting to where she is.

Thankfully, she has citizenship here now and can relax as far as her right to stay is concerned, which she deserves due to opening up education for UK born people whom globalisation hasn't benefited as it has some others.

 

In reply to Bellie:

I'm suspecting it wasn't the Manchester universiry debating society branch of the lib dems or the young conservatives. Unless you know otherwise? 

In reply to Timmd:

Her job sounds extremely worthwhile, but I don't think it needs a degree.  

Any degree where " it is quite difficult not to graduate without at least a 2:2 while undertaking very little work and with very little contact time" to quote a previous poster, isn't really worth the paper it's written on.

Psychology would cover similar issues but in a much more rigorous and scientific way.  However entry requirements are much higher and a greater understanding of statistics is needed.  

In reply to summo: Good lord, how do you know who was being noisy, other than that they were young and left wing? You're chuntering on as if it's confirmed your expectations of hypocrisy. 

 

In reply to marsbar:

Hmmn, perhaps don't make the mistake of assuming that one sociology degree is just like another one? You're taking his perspective of sociology where he works (without looking into where he works and how true it is to be fair), and applying it to somewhere else. I've been purposefully vague about which university (and other details) to protect her privacy.  

You don't know what her Masters and PHD have been in*, which may well include psychology. 

*Neither do I - as it happens.

 

In reply to summo:

Find me a video of the Manchester Student Union Access Officer heckling at an event and I'll grant you the charge of hypocrisy. But I think it's more likely that not every student agrees with these measures, just as not every old right winger will be outraged by clapping without sound.

In reply to Timmd:

It's pretty easy if you listen to AQ to work it out, when anyone other than a Corbyn supporter is speaking on the panel and a member of the audience is vocally booing or shouting out liar at them as they talk. Then when the Corbyn rep on the panel talks, the audience members will be whooping with joy afterwards. 

In reply to FreshSlate:

They actually had the head of the UK students union on AQ last week. I thought they'd dragged a 12 year old in off the streets. Her use of language was truly appalling, considering she is supposedly representing those in higher education. Barely literate would be a polite description. 

In reply to summo: Ah, gotcha, I was thinking at cross purposes to your post. That'll teach me. 

 

In reply to summo: 

Barely articulate?

In reply to Timmd:

I suspect both. Have a listen online. 

In reply to Offwidth:

Well an argument based on anecdote is always going to go round in circles so I'm not going to feed the fire.

What I will add is that I'm surprised and shocked at the contempt for current students from a member of university teaching staff.

 

 

 

 

In reply to XXXX:

I agree.  Offwidth gave a shockingly moderate and balanced opinion.  Commendable for someone in role for several decades.

Leas flippantly I’m not sure how you read a shocking level of contempt into that post.

In reply to wintertree:

A lesson in differing perceptions maybe.

But none of my lecturers would have called me or peers entitled. Inspiring and full of opportunity maybe, they called us that, talented too. They called us that. Talked about doing the best we can and needing to work hard but stay grounded. We were encouraged to be ambitious and well rounded. Pretty sure they didn't call us entitled. No I'm absolutely sure they didn't.

 

In reply to wintertree:

Cheers

Its not just my anecdotes as I'm very well connected across many subject areas (and different institutions) due to the peculiarities of my roles. I really enjoy teaching hard working students, irrespective of ability, and long ago stopped trying to worry too much about students who just want to do enough to scrape through and those who have been repeatedly warned about engagement, as they are heading for failure, but still can't be bothered.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

People at University exposed to ideas that make them think! Whatever will the world come to...

In reply to XXXX:

Thats exactly what some of the 9k fee students can be like and I never really came across the problem before that level of fee came in (some colleagues said they did in Russell group institutions when 3k fees came in). Its only a minority, but they really do feel entitled that they have purchased a degree (many even use that exact word in complaints; as do some parents who phone you up complaining when they have a fail and repeat year). A handful of the more deluded ones think they have purchased at least a 2:1. Now if a bright student who works hard thinks they are entitled to a good degree, I'd say they are right (subject to unusual bad luck) but if you are not especially bright and miss most classes in my department you might well fail the year (and will face some referred work).

I'd add that pretty much every graduate with honours from my department has a choice of very good jobs, inside and sometimes outwith their expertise,  but that's only about 2/3rds of those who start with us. That group are inspiring and will be successful. However, I'm certainly not going to call students who regularly can't be bothered to come to class inspiring and talented (even though there is a bit of an incentive to academics to do so in our wonderful KPI driven present, as false flatterey can help keep student satisfaction stats up...always taken before results are out). I'm fully aware that some who fail might well turn out to be inspiringly successful in something else, later in life, when they have grown up a bit. A few even do this 'in course' going from a fail and repeat year 1 to a good degree a year late.

In reply to Offwidth:

I'd say they're entitled to good teaching. And that means not throwing students on the scrap heap if they aren't engaged. Maybe the teaching is poor? Maybe the subject material is uninspiring for them? Maybe it isn't what they were expecting and would be better on an alternative course.

I'm hardly old and wise but I find in life that getting the best out of people sometimes takes a bit of effort and is tremendously rewarding.

 

In reply to XXXX:

A lesson for you or for me?  I assume your 2016 enrollment was a taught masters?  I would not generalise from a postgraude degree and a year 2000 undergrad degree to the current £9k per year undergrads era.

Well not to your faces.  Less flippantly, the other poster’s point was that a sense of entitlement has risen in the undergraduates since your year 2000 enrolment.  Some of that entitlement is more justified than others - there has been a massive push in teaching practices at many places since the introduction of fees.  I still see no contempt in any of this discussion, only in your interpretation of it.

I’m absolutely sure I’ve never called a student entitled.  Somtimes I have reminded them of their responsibilities, or their role in the outcome they don’t like, but I’ve never called them entitled...

In reply to wintertree:

Not everything's about you

 

In reply to XXXX:

I doubt anyone would doubt that.

Nobody has advocated that.

It’s rarely poor but not everyone has the same opinion of what is good.  A good student will adapt to many different teaching styles,

Well, that’s their problem....  

Nobody is stopping them...

You missed out an incredibly big one now that A-levels are not very indicative of ability for various reasons “maybe it’s just too difficult for them”.

I think you will find that a disproportionate amount of time is spent by both academics and the administrations ob helping students who fall under all this umbrella of issues.  It doesn’t stop some of those students from showing a disproportionate sense of entitlement and I would argue that in these cases their entitlement is standing in the way of an achievable and positive outcome for them.

You’ll find many academics doing exactly this, and again I would argue that a disproportionate sense of entitlement from a minority of students sands in the way of the academics.

In reply to XXXX:

Well Pardon Me.  It wasn’t clear from your post.  Heaven forbid I should try and find clarity rather than trying to score a cheap point.

In reply to XXXX:

I'm in a high ranked post 92 and we are pretty ruthless with poor teachers these days. If they are fixed term or part time they won't get contracts renewed. If they are full time they will fail probation unless they can earn enough in other activities to avoid having to teach much. Our KPI assessments are much tougher than the assessments the students face. We have to average 4 out of 5 in anonymous student satisfaction questionnaires,  across the full range of the student experience in the module, or follow a process to explain what went wrong.

Maybe you can explain how you help someone who won't turn up, even when being forced to come in for several meetings to explain themselves. Fail and repeat students are not on a scrapheap they are on a last chance that they choose to take.  Fail and terminate or withdrawn students are also on no scrap heap: there is plenty else in life to be going on with, but our course expects standards and responsibilities (alongside the student rights) and is professionally accredited to do just that. To be perfectly clear: students with genuine problems like 'statements of access' or mitigation due to illness or other serious issues receive all the help we can possibly give... any work affected by such is always refferred uncapped.

In reply to summo:

I can't help pondering that you were young once, and that some older people would have been similarly dismissive of yourself, and that there could be some kind of cycle at work - in you changing from being like the younger people you see in a  jaundiced way, to the older people who saw you similarly? You're not being charitable, it has to be said.

Life can be full of that kind of thing... 

In reply to Timmd:

Oldies always wanting to tell ignorant younguns that they know nothing is as old as human history.

The difference today may be that once there was too much deference to adults from youth, a result of conservatism.  Social liberalism instead views age is mutually exclusive from privilege and power, therefore little inate deference is made to the wisdom of experience.

We live in relatively socially liberal times.  Wisdom or common-knowledge are almost dirty words.  The intellectual underpinnings of the sort of activism found in SUs, also inform social sciences, and an increasing proportion of graduates, who themselves are an increasing proportion of society at large.  Its a form nihilism towards historic knowledge and experience.  All under the banner of removing oppression.

A certain Canadian who isn't too popular on here makes his living these days warning about where this can lead.  That we are deluded if we think we are different from Germans in 1939, that we wouldn't participate in authoritarianism or worse, and that lessons of old should not be erased and that (as imperfect as the world is) many of its social structure have evolved to be the way they are for good reason. 

Student Unions, and this school of thought, has a distinctly authoritarian air.  Everything must change, those no unfavourable social structure has intrinsic value, and that conservatism is by its nature an evil to be eradicated.  When they act with such certainty of belief its pretty scary - like teenagers in the Congo running around with AK-47s.

In reply to Pan Ron:

What a load of nonsense. The world is full of authoritarian threats and you can be sure SUs are very low down on that particular list. The universities they operate in are usually way more more a threat to freedom of speech (try critising some University management in public and see how long it takes to get suspended). Arguably one of the verg biggest threats to freedom of speech is too much of it in the US, as it allows dangerous extremists way too much airtime and allows news channels like Fox to not get their wings clipped when they lie to the public (they would not be allowed to do this in the UK and much of Europe).

In reply to Offwidth:

Who do you think has more impact on the UK's future leaders, managers, decision-makers, and everyone from your barista to the small business owner? 

Right-wing media outlets?  University managers? 

Or those who frame the intellectual space, the allowable discussion, and the moral frameworks of the institutions where half the population now spend anywhere from 4 to 7 years of their young adult lives after school and home? 

I've become quite thankful for the existence of right-wing news.  At least there is something out there willing to present an alternative to the all-encompassing and almost entirely one-sided nonsense that is increasingly common in university culture.

In reply to Pan Ron: Jordan Peterson is a little bit simplistic and alarmist for my tastes, and loose with his facts and what he implies too. On a youtube video about same sex couples adopting, he talked about it being better than a dysfunctional straight couple, before talking about the need for certain role modeling, and saying 'the statistics speak for themselves' to (to my ears) imply that there's certain drawbacks in same sex couples being parents, when the statistics show there are none. He talked about his meat only diet curing his gingivitis 'Which you're not meant to recover from' or words to that effect, where as some googling shows that is untrue, gingivitis is fairly easily cured. He speaks with such an air of authority, that I think people won't double check what he says. 

Edit: On UK radio too he's said things in a statement of fact tone, before hastily/humbly retracting them when queried. 

In reply to Timmd:

When it comes to SUs, facts go out the window. Student targeted publications would be as at home in The Socialist Workers Party.

Regarding same sex couples he argues different evidence. I have no view on it. What impresses me, on the topic of homosexuality, is that two commentators the Left hate, can do a long-form interview where the conservative one tells the gay one he finds his homosexuality utterly at odds with his beliefs and more. Yet the two remain friends and have a respectful discussion. They embrace difference even if offensively different.  

I struggle to find that level of accommodation from the Left. It's more a case of think the same or else you are the Other.

In reply to Pan Ron:

I'm not young.  Jordan Peterson talks a load of nonsense.  

In reply to marsbar:

Lets say thats true. What should be done about it?  Deplatforming?

In reply to Pan Ron:

Student unions like Congo child soliders!? 

That is an impressive level of barking. 

In reply to MG:

Immature kids with power in their hands that they might regret later in life.

In reply to Pan Ron:

We've got a US president tweeting that women supporting someone subject to attempted rape are professional actors fundef by  Soros, and you worry SU muppets are a threat to civilisation... 

In reply to Pan Ron:

Nothing needs to be done, as he has (within legal limits) every right right to talk nonsense. 

Why would you think otherwise?  

 

In reply to MG:

Can't someone swap the orange idiot's laptop with an etch a sketch? 

(Credit to Dilbert)  

http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-04-03

The fact that I remember when an etch a sketch was an exciting way to make images probably gives my age away.  

In reply to MG

And your worried about a few tweets when the US has a populace screaming that someone is a rapist and should be denied a Supreme Court position when there are nothing other than allegations.

Guilty until proven innocent?

In reply to Pan Ron:

 

No. Unsuitable for lifetime judicial appointments until proven innocent of both attempted rape and also lying under oath and being temperamentally unsuited and openly partisan  

 

In reply to marsbar:

Because the standard reaction to JP, or similarly minded individuals, venturing on to campus is that they need to be no-platformed.

Meanwhile Communist Society, The Spartacus League, SWP, you name it, freely put up their stands. Universities have a weird view on which mindset caused more human suffering this last century.

In reply to Pan Ron:

On the balance of probabilities it's extremely likely he did it.   It's  pretty clear he is a proven liar. He avoided answering questions.  He tried to deflect to make it seem the date was a weekend to claim an alibi that didn't exist.  All of this has been discussed at length on the other thread.  

In reply to marsbar:

Fine. No due process then. 

Like I said. I'm less concerned about presidential tweets.

In reply to Pan Ron:

Which University no platformed him?  Was it due to his refusal to join this century and show some manners?  

Free speech isn't the same as refusing to entertain someone who is basically rude.  

In reply to Pan Ron:

It's all about old white men who don't like being called out on their behaviour and lack of understanding that the 1950s called and they want their old fashioned ideas back.  

In reply to Pan Ron:

What do youthink is going on in the senate? Just because it's not a criminal court doesn't mean it is not a due process. It is quite normal in for many jobs to have higher ethical entry standards than "not a convicted criminal" 

As you've made clear, tilting at your SU windmills

 

In reply to MG:

What is going on in the US is opposition to a right-wing Trump SC appointment. That's fine.  Allowing mere allegations to destroy someone's career and to derail a political process is something I'm not so cool with. Similar happened to a CERN scientist...its all good.

What is the due process in allegations?

Likewise, don't point fingers at SUs because Trump?

 

In reply to Pan Ron:

In the consistency of the allegations and demonstrable lies in the response. Somethings, rightly, require a lower level of proof than criminal. 

Point fingers if you must but don't pretend they are the serious threat here. 

 

In reply to Pan Ron:

Poor man having his career ruined.  

Perhaps he should have avoided this by not treating women like objects.  That much isn't in question. 

In reply to marsbar:

Looks like he's not... 

In reply to Pan Ron:

Of course not. But he was attending a job interview, not a criminal court. The standard of proof is not the criminal one, and the expectation of behaviour on a Supreme Court judge is not just “not been found guilty in a courtroom”

One of these expectations is “not to lie under oath”. It seems pretty clear he failed on that, and that alone would disqualify him from the position in anything other than the poisoned parody of an independent judiciary America has sunk to 

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

 

In reply to MG:

I'm not surprised.  

In reply to summo:

Football is outside so it doesn't echo and it isn't the same kind of noise.  People don't clap at football.  Similarly I prefer shopping outdoors than in a shopping centre.  It's quite hard to explain.  I enjoy loud music sometimes.  But being in a room with hard floors and  lots of people can really become painful with all the sounds bouncing around.  The worst thing and the one I really cant do is kids swimming galas.  

In reply to marsbar:

The noise at swimming galas is probably something to do with the water and therefore I propose that water is banned at such events and replaced with something which is nothing like water.  This means, that *everyone* can enjoy such events without having to endure the hardship of hearing water related stuff.  Everyone's a winner and with the added bonus that the participants don't get wet or end up smelling of chlorine.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Thanks for mocking my difficulties.  I wasn't demanding anything be done, just trying to explain something that isn't easy for a neurotypical to understand.  

I can wear earplugs at a swimming gala and still follow what's going on.  I can't do that at a debate so I wouldn't be able to go. 

Like I said above acoustic design and adaptation of buildings is the way forward. It's nothing new and the specifications are out there in the public domain so I don't know why it's not been done.  Jazz hands is silly but it at least raises the issue.  It's not a great solution but it is a practical no cost solution.  

In reply to Pan Ron:

It's hard to predict the future but I doubt major news providers will stop having a huge influence any time soon. The PPE Oxford course has arguably had more influence on recent politics than the rest of the University system in total. In contrast those involved in SU politics in the past have hardly made a dent. The aggressively leftist SU leader Jack Straw became a Blairite!

Right now, hardly any ordinary students listen to the SU, they often have to arm twist sports clubs to attend to remain quorate. The real 'moral framing' I see is coming from management as they control the writing of  the rules (yes with culpable student and staff input). For instance, its nearly always management who enable the tiny number of speakers to be, so called, 'no platformed' , that your beloved right wing press gets it's knickers in a twist about so often (normally closed on 'H&S' grounds due to risk from protesters). 'Moral framing' in Universities is much older in the US and hasn't exactly moved politics much over there. I dislike JP as he had an opportunity to make a real difference, becoming famous after pushing back against his own idiot Uni managers and yet he used that platform to speak confidently about stuff he has no real expertise on, on the public stage, and is plain wrong far too often.

I'm not interested in any wing to my news I just want truth and balance and yes, soft censorship of extremists. US Fox news and religious channels scare me shitless as they lie without shame and influence tens of millions. 

Edit: ... on the subject of truth it turns out there never was a clapping ban from the SU ...just an active encouragement of BSL clapping. Who would have thought it, a media storm based on bs?

In reply to Offwidth:

The link stating there is no ban on clapping: https://manchesterstudentsunion.com/articles/official-statement-on-bsl-clap...

In reply to Offwidth:

So, fake news then? To enable the usual stereotypes about SJW snowflake students to be rehearsed? 

What a surprise.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Yes and I'm sick of  facing such manufactured controversy where every man and his dog has an opinion when the HE system is facing existential threats and the public hardly even notice. Starting from brexit (mainly its horrendous impact on research funding and EU staff and students), we move to immigration politics (the ongoing idiocy of including overseas HE students in immigration stats, mainly down to our great Maybot; and awful pressures on the army of outside of EU overseas staff in UK HE) , funding reviews that could lead to closed institutions (really expensive and a nightmare for ex grads unless we produce a managed back-up system soon) , then managerialism that leads to excess control and bs (who would have predicted Universities being forced to row back on marketing claims?), real impacts on academic freedom (never mind the moral framing,  I've seen important independant voices forced out of institutions...all gagged) and amplification of the funding problems (investments by institutions, well up league tables, in our highly competitive arena that look super high risk to me... if the predicted extra students fail to materialise some are stuffed). In summary we lack adult political action and proper governance in our institutions (still for the moment regarded as arguably the best in the world) and face cartoon concerns from the press.

In reply to marsbar:

You are a racist pig and I claim my £5.

In reply to Thrudge:

I'm white.  Me criticising white people isn't racist.  Ageist and sexist perhaps.   You calling me a pig is very offensive however.  

In reply to Offwidth:

It's what they do.  Get everyone het up about nonsense whilst they wreck our institutions and sell our heritage and buildings and land to their mates for trivial amounts and make businesses out of services that have no reason to be privatised.  

In reply to marsbar:

Actually you just need to be prejudiced against a certain race to be racist. Your own particular race is irrelevant.

In reply to Pan Ron:

There's no difference in how children turn out if parented by same sex couples, in the youtube video I've seen Jordan Paterson implies something different. 

Being a lefty liberal, I struggled briefly with my Dad's new partner being a Tory, before deciding I couldn't see myself as being a liberal person if I had a problem with her having different political views, it'd rather make me a hypocrite, I thought. It's an opportunity to talk to somebody who thinks something different. 

In reply to marsbar:

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Attributing negative properties to people based on their race is racism.

Deliberately so.  Racism is ugly, intellectually lazy, and completely unacceptable.  It is no less so when directed at white people.

In reply to Thrudge:

But marsbar wasn't being racist. It was a comment on the inequalities which can still persist, or else it wouldn't be so remarkable when females and people of colour find themselves in a role of power or influence. It's about the context in which things are put. If it was a different race she was talking about, due to different inequalities, and she was still white, it still wouldn't be racist.

  

 

In reply to Timmd:

The same bollocks social science that finds Mein Kampf palatable is the same social science that tells us as long as you perceive something then it is true.  Which re-defines racism so that if something is said about whites, be they trailer-park trash or royalty, then is cannot be racism...while screaming racism and oppression for everyone else.  It's the same "academia" that also tells us context doesn't matter at all for some things, but that context is everything elsewhere.  You get to conveniently pick and choose.

 

 

In reply to marsbar:

You're sexist though, "Ban men from playgrounds who have no reason to be there" (to slightly paraphrase)

In reply to Timmd:

That's good news as it should put an end to half the angst about absent fathers. 

Obviously though, JP comes from a standpoint that males and females are innately different and that the broader spectrum you get from male + female parents is healthy.  Most same-sex parent kids probably get that spread of traits regardless, due to cross over of the normal curves.  But are simply less likely to. 

When I've heard him speak on the matter he's been pretty unequivocal; that it's fine, but he thinks having parents of both sexes is likely better.  Taboo?

We are after all constantly told about how great diversity is, and how essential gender balance is.  You don't have to hold an anti-gay marriage ideology to suspect that male+female parents may result in better outcomes.  Or maybe gender balance isn't quite as important as we make it out to be?  Perhaps boardrooms, like households, function just as well when they are all male or female?

In reply to Pan Ron:

marsbar wasn't saying something 'about' white people. It's more that, if those who hold power in a democracy like the USA, which is multi racial and has men and woman in it, are of a group made up of white men, they're not going to have lived the life experiences of those who's lives their decisions will affect. A white person in the US or the UK can't know what it's like to be a black person, or a straight person what it's like to be gay. To be critical of a political system because it is comprised of old white men, is reflecting this reality. 

I'd say context matters in every instance, or else one isn't being consistent.

 

In reply to Timmd:

You still find it remarkable when women and people of colour attain positions of power or influence?

To take institutes centred on London alone; the head of state, the head of government, commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Commissioner of the London fire brigade and chairman of the London ambulance service...all women.

If you find this state of affairs at all remarkable perhaps you should reassess your belief that you're a liberal.

In reply to Lusk:

Most sex offenders are men.  It doesn't mean most men are sex offenders.  Men who aren't sex offenders don't tend to hang round kids being creepy.  Banning those that do is sensible.  

 

In reply to Thrudge:

I didn't attribute anything.  I observed the behaviour and described what I see.  The same man that tried to suggest I would deplatform is now trying to restrict my free speech by being all politically correct and calling me a racist.  

In reply to Stichtplate:

This isn't about 'me', I wouldn't have thought?

 See these figures. As of July last year. ''Currently 8% of MPs in the House of Commons and around 6% of Members of the House of Lords are from an ethnic minority background. The number of ethnic minority female MPs in the House of Commons increased from 3.0% in 2015 (20 of 650) to 4% in 2017 (26 of 650)''

So, 4 women in influential positions doesn't mean that women and people from ethnic minorities aren't more rarely in what one would (hopefully) call positions of power and influence. 

So that's why you've made it about me, so you can have a dig,....?  

Edit: As of July last year, women made up less than half of MPs, and the increase in numbers seems to have tailed off at that point. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40192060

In reply to Timmd:

Fair enough.  But it seems fine for a black person to know what life is like for a white - that everything is easier for them, that they don't suffer equal structural hardships, and that to be singled out because of your race isn't equally damaging when its done to whites.  

In my third committee meeting this week I started to notice something (while being preached to on the need for implicit bias training ahead of this round of senior academic promotions).  I was one of only 3 males (one of whom was clearly gay) in a room of 20+ people.  I suspect the figures were smiliar in my previous meetings.

We're surrounded by systems and hierarchies in which we can find ourselves a minority.  It's not necessary malevolent because the skin colour, gender or orientation ratio doesn't conform to wider society. 

The implicit assumption being made is old white men are not going to apply fairness to across society in the same way a young black woman in a position of power would.  That strikes me as racist, sexist and ageist.

That's good to hear.  Unfortunately, in practice, that is often no longer the case.  Very much a result of left-inspired ways of thinking that seek to overthrow power structures.

 

In reply to marsbar:

I'm calling bullshit here. Do you remember Mr & Mrs West?

You can manipulate statistics to whatever result you desire.

In reply to Timmd:

It's hardly having a dig. You either think it's remarkable to find women and minorities in positions of power or you don't. I don't.

So 8% of MP's are from ethnic minority backgrounds when in UK population they make up 12%. On considering the innate disadvantages inherent in not being long established in the country the figures strike me as remarkably unremarkable.

What I do find remarkable is the paucity of people from working class backgrounds entering top universities and the upper echelons of government and most professions.

In reply to marsbar:

Crikey, how did we get here?  What is creepy?  Being a little awkward?  Having a limp and a withered hand?  A wart on the nose perhaps...along with a few concerned mothers tutting and pointing.  Maybe a little bit of malicious gossip to get the ball rolling.

In reply to Pan Ron:

It comes down to white people not having their race being a factor when dealing with the police, the NHS, and in general day to day life, simply because most other people are also white. Black people only know what it's like to be white, as far as them not having to deal with racism for being black goes, in Taiwan, it's white people who face colour prejudice - I don't suppose you'd quibble when they say something along the lines of it being easier for native Taiwanese to live within general society?

There's an argument that women are more equipped in 'people roles', but with how boys are falling behind academically compared to girls at school, I wouldn't be surprised if measures are sought to balance things back again.

That implicit assumption has never even occurred to me, and I've never come across it too. I wonder if you're projecting perhaps? It's hard to know from across the interweb.

I think context is everything, always, and everywhere, or we don't know what we're talking about, and we can't make the best choices. 

In reply to marsbar:

'Raises hand' most reported/convicted sex offenders are men. The woman who founded KidsScape (sp), a children's charity, has written a book (or books) about female pedophiles, and is of the point of view that it's 'societies last great taboo'. After a morning TV 'thing' about female sex abuses, she got 200 phone calls from people who had been abused by females, and has spoken of attending an event where anybody wanting to talk about their experiences at the hands of females were shouted down by other women who didn't want to entertain the possibility that it could be true. I'll find her youtube interview when I get a mo.  

Here it is.  The lady is Michelle Elliot.  youtube.com/watch?v=_cBSH1JI7Qs&

In reply to Timmd:

Yep, if they DO actually experience like-for-like negative treatment then they are suffering.  But just being black doesn't mean they automatically are.  I find it interesting that any time I have slightly awkward or mildly offensive experiences when dealing with non-whites, I'd never dream of assuming this was a result of their racism - I'd put it down to cultural unfamiliarity. 

We are always telling blacks they are victims.  A hospital appointment goes badly for you, don't blame an NHS fvckup - its racism that caused it.  Strangely, none of the monumental efforts being made to accommodate minorities get a mention.  The racial experience is always a negative one. 

Most of the difficulties a white person will have in Taiwan will be on account of crap Mandarin skills, not being brought up in the culture, sticking to a familiar ex-pat community and not picking up on social nuances.

You could claim the negative results of that are racism.  But I wouldn't.  You will of course get a latent feeling of never being accepted in places like that...but a lot of this is down to the same kind of projecting that I mentioned above (something goes wrong, its because I'm different - if I had a dollar for every time I've heard an ex-pat say this I'd be rich). 

There will be racism in Taiwan, much like there is in the UK.  However, I'd say the UK does a hell of a lot better job of eliminating it (to the point of over-compensation) than just about any other country on the planet - and without a doubt a much better job of it than any African or Caribean country. 

If I were to say young black women won't act in the best interests of society (because being young, black and female, they cannot possibly understand the requirements of everyone outside of that venn diagram intersection) I'd probably be pilloried.  Yet it is apparently fine to say of old, white, men.

I don't want people in power who are only willing to represent the elements of biology they embody.

In reply to Timmd:

I'm aware of the issues. I worked with abusers and victims for some years. However the majority of incidents in the situation in question (from the other thread) tend to be male abusers.  Female abusers follow a different pattern generally.  

Pointing out differences and being called racist or sexist seems to be what people complain about and yet those that complain don't seem to like it when someone points out something that they don't like.  I should probably be calling people snowflakes or something.  

In reply to marsbar:

No, you simply call potential perverts people.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Recently I was severely reprimanded by a customer in the supermarket i work in for making too much noise as she was autistic. I apologised profusely for making a noise explaining that I didn't know that she was autistic, and that If I saw her again shopping I would make more of an effort at being quiet. I then politely suggested that to avoid this discomfort when shopping she might use our on line shopping service. That went down like a lead balloon. I have a niece and nephew who are both autistic and their parents both thought the student union in question went over the top.

In reply to icnoble:

Except there was never a clapping ban: just encouragement of BSL clapping at main democratic SU meetings. If they think that is OTT I worry for them but I suspect they were just duped, like everyone else, by the fake news.

In reply to:

Are we not now in the situation where the far left have joined the far right in their actions, and both have become effectively modern-day fascists. Where both these extremes believe that their view is the only one that they can accept to exist, and anyone who they disagree with is shouted down or worse. Not only that, but anyone in the middle (the majority of us - who are therefore not with "them") is deemed to be "the enemy".

Democracy allows the existence of contrasting views, but does it have a future when the comments and beliefs of ideological extremists are filling our TV, Press, and more worryingly the Interweb and all other digital communications ? - the latter with absolutely no way of being contradicted, no matter how many lies are stated as fact.

In reply to fred99:

The far right and far left were always looking towards totalitarianism, it's in their very nature, as they cannot cope with democratic dissent. Yet I'm not sure what you watch and read as I barely see any extremist views in the mainstream media, TV or press, very much unlike the situation in the US. I'm worried that lazy popularism after a chaotic brexit might lead to a new growth in far right racist parties and despair that many ex SWP, Militant and Respect members , like those I've opposed for decades in the trade union movement, have been allowed back into Labour. Where extremists do occasionally get air time in the UK there is normally full and forceful argument against their unyeilding ideological idiocy.

People in the middle just need to be less lazy and maintain a better sense of the importance of truth.  A good start would be to write to the newspapers that use bs to stir up the fears that attempt to pull the middle apart. I'm a pretty standard centre leftist and my SU has been to the right of me for some time. Its a complete myth that the left always run student politics. This entire thread started on such media bs about an SU.

 

In reply to Pan Ron:

It's more to do with the higher rates at which black people are sectioned, rather than an appointment being 'slightly awkward', and the level of service they get being poorer (for whatever reason).

It rather depends on what one is talking about. When it's white people in Taiwan being given verbal abuse at a bus stop by a native Taiwanese, I think that's rather more than projecting. Said incident started 'a conversation' in Taiwan about the need to acknowledge racism against white people in their society.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, the UK can be putting a lot into combating racism, and it also be true that there changes which still need to be made.

What I said about context, and everybody needing to be represented by those in power hasn't registered it almost seems?  White men wouldn't, because (for example) they're not female, and wouldn't know (like females would) how to make decisions so that the interests of women (without being in opposition to those of men) are best taken into account. Conversely, black women wouldn't be able to make the best decisions for everybody in society, too, of course. 

Nobody does, I wouldn't have thought, but I don't think anybody is suggesting that, merely that, when men and women are both in power, they interests of men and women can be more equally looked after or taken into account. 

In reply to Timmd:

My underlying point was that leaning-in to racism, however that may be and however far it goes, is too easily seen as an automatic good that shouldn't be questioned.

Presently, anything that can be perceived as racism, anything that might combat racism, and anything that identifies something as racist, has to be accepted and acted on.  Not acting is seen as an endorsement of racism and the social sphere is rife with finger pointing in this regard.

I'm sure this is largely because we no longer have racism enshrined in law and therefore few remaining examples of institutional racism exist.  Objectively racist acts are not only illegal but almost unanimously socially stigmatised and stamped on speedily.

Yet some groups who could rightly once claim to be impacted by racist policies, and who could blame those policies for failure to attain, continue to underperform.  If we're not willing to look for other (possibly awkward) reasons for that underperformance, and wish to continue to blame racism, you then need to widen the net.  You need to redefine racism. 

Universities have done their bit.  The social sciences declared racism is now defined by skin colour AND power.  This permits social levelling policies that themselves wouldn't pass a classically defined racism test.  Hence the increasingly mainstream claim that racism aimed at whites is not racism.  You're seeing similar mental gymnastics being performed in the trans/terf war.  This is bog-standard in HE curriculum today (and for me 10 years ago) and I'd say it would be risky to even question these days.  Its taken as a virtual truism.    

Equally, if objective overt racism can't be pointed to, you are left with only subjective, untestable, evidence of it.  So this has been adopted in the definition of racism too.  I perceive racism, therefore I suffer racism.  This unsurprisingly perhaps, conveniently dovetails with another academic trend; claiming reason and the scientific method, which would otherwise challenge this sort of subjectivity, is itself biased, a result of a colonised curriculum, with objectivity itself seen as politicised.

Basically, a method is being created, to suit a conclusion, so that that evidence can be found.  Racism can be claimed to exist even with no direct evidence.   

Which is why I find your claims to the importance of context odd.  I agree, it should be absolutely considered.  Yet current progressive thinking is that context and objectivity can be discarded.  This has shifted beyond fringe academia and is almost a central tenant of modern policy.  It is found in the real world, from progressive workplace policy to our legal system (think Dankula or the trans- cases).  One person's subjective belief in a crime or racism is evidence enough.

This all comes together in a ripe environment for failed social policy and a systemic failure to deal with root-causes of major issues.  Its tantamount to removing a cancer patient's kidney because admitting to colo-rectal cancer would be embarrassing.

Coleman Hughes, either in Quillette (https://quillette.com/author/coleman-cruz-hughes/#menuopen), or in his recent Dave Rubin interview (feel free to fast-forward whenever DR speaks  youtube.com/watch?v=rdh8zPr_ZmI&) made a very accessible and (to me at least) well-argued point about this. 

The argument has also been made for decades on the right (by Thomas Sowell etc) and ignored - because anything that comes from the right can be dismissed as self-hate or racism.  Now coming from people in the middle ground, and with anyone from Candice to Kanya breaking ranks, it's starting to get more traction.

A lot of stuff that fights for minority rights may have the enitrely the opposite effect.  A lot of the enlightened discussion about what is good for minorities may be way too shallow while despite being believed to be profound and informative.  I'd liken it to drug or alcohol prohibition; taking moral stances on vices rather than seeing them as symptoms.  On attainment and empowerment, the right (if the left can take off its the-right-are-racist blinkers) actually has some useful ideas for minorities.  Like strict schooling, dispensing with the victimhood-culture, the low expectations and demanding adherence to certain agreed standards, might be a very good start.

In reply to Pan Ron:

In my experience generally the children of immigrants have far more respect for school than than the children of right wing parents.  I remember a particularly right wing mother and her 2 were appallingly badly behaved brats.  Entitled little bullies the pair of them.  Any attempt to improve behaviour was met with shrieking phone calls about teachers picking on them.  Meanwhile even the merest suggestion of phoning home has any kid with non English parents behaving impeccably.  

In reply to marsbar:

I'm writing with reference to general populations, not individual cases.  And definitely not judging migrants.  Quite the opposite. 

If we're looking at blacks in the UK, there appear to be big differences between the outcomes of migrants and 2nd generations, Afro Caribbeans v various African migrants.  Before even including Asians in the mix, and forgetting the varying outcomes of different white populations, it seems unlikely to me that race or claims to white privilege are major contributing reasons for success or failure.

Its all just gut feeling of course, and not something I expect to see much made of in our media given the inevitable claims of racism that would ensue.  But I get all the claims about racism are far out of proportion with actual cases of it.

In reply to marsbar:

In that case they should know to carry ear plugs with them. This is a thoroughly stupid decision that will not be taken up by the rest of the world so it achieves nothing. Having asked two friends who are hard of hearing/borderline deaf they also think it's stupidity of the finest kind.

Does anyone know what happens to anyone caught clapping?

 

In reply to Frank the Husky:

They get stared at in the most withering fashion that the happy non-clappers can bring themselves to do. 
 

 

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Clapping was never banned, so presumably nothing happens to those who dont clap. 

https://manchesterstudentsunion.com/articles/official-statement-on-bsl-clap...

In reply to Frank the Husky:

The trick to this sort of thing is, rather than submit to ones natural kneejerk tendency to dismiss anything that appears to impinge upon ones right to be a gaping arse, to instead take a few calming breaths and try to view it as an opportunity to show magnanimity to those less able or fortunate than oneself 

In reply to Offwidth:

That statement is a little bit of a fudge though isn't it.
On one hand, they say that it isn't banned in the vast majority of events, but then say that it will be 'encouraged' in their democratic events and then continue with a statement strongly hinting that it will indeed be policy at such events. 

 

In reply to nufkin:

Unless they’re blind.

In reply to FactorXXX:

No it's not a fudge. It's said explicitly you can still clap. It also says the policy mainly applies to SU meetings (and not to most SU events).

"We are not banning audible clapping – we understand that some people may be more comfortable to continue using it."