You might think the crushing of civil liberties would worry students at Oxford. Yet in the middle of the virus panic students are ramping up their efforts against hate speech, lest anything triggering creeps onto the syllabus.
After the university executive pushed back, SJWs are backpedaling, while still defending their efforts to protect the vulnerable from frightening words.
Students are right to be triggered by eugenics but not on paper. Rather than worry about a 20 year-old article, you might think SJWs would notice the “perspective on reproductive autonomy” of microchipping people as Bill Gates and others in the ID2020 alliance propose. Perhaps Oxford students might pay attention to the “Eugenic” potential of such an initiative.
Well, Rita, now is a very good time to get out of the safe space and look at what is happening in the real world.
There is a long history of eugenics, of political medicine and, now, the appearance of medical martial law. If not in university, then at what age will Oxford students be ready to come face-to-face with these triggering political trends?
https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2020/05/04/why-the-sus-motion-on-lecture-and-tutorial-content-has-been-misinterpreted/
After the university executive pushed back, SJWs are backpedaling, while still defending their efforts to protect the vulnerable from frightening words.
The SU motion itself gives the example of the Jurisprudence FHS option Medical Law and Ethics. One of the listed readings is an article by Julian Savulescu entitled “Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children”. This article, as its title might suggest, offers a blatantly ableist perspective on reproductive autonomy. In fact, the very first word of the article is “Eugenic”.
Students are right to be triggered by eugenics but not on paper. Rather than worry about a 20 year-old article, you might think SJWs would notice the “perspective on reproductive autonomy” of microchipping people as Bill Gates and others in the ID2020 alliance propose. Perhaps Oxford students might pay attention to the “Eugenic” potential of such an initiative.
I, for one, do not believe that a person with a disability stating their belief that “People like me deserve to exist” would benefit from an article whose thesis is that “People like you should be prevented from existing,” writes Rita Kimijima-Dennemeyer
Well, Rita, now is a very good time to get out of the safe space and look at what is happening in the real world.
I hope I have made enough of a case that triggering content is not beneficial to the intellectual growth of minority students. The question of how the SU’s motion may have created a dangerous precedent for academia, had the university accepted it, remains. Critics of the motion have argued that it prevents tutors from discussing important but sensitive topics in an academic setting. These topics include but are not limited to eugenics, women’s suffrage, and slavery. Again, I believe that such an interpretation misconstrues the original intent of the motion. The motion merely says that such content should not be made mandatory.
There is a long history of eugenics, of political medicine and, now, the appearance of medical martial law. If not in university, then at what age will Oxford students be ready to come face-to-face with these triggering political trends?
https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2020/05/04/why-the-sus-motion-on-lecture-and-tutorial-content-has-been-misinterpreted/
Comments