The Times of London reports; an excerpt:
Rio Jacques, 23, a second-year history student at the university...is the first activist from the campaign to speak openly, added: “It’s very much cloak and dagger, but that’s not the way we want it to be. The masks — it’s not meant to be threatening. It’s just for the protection of the people that want to be vocal.
“No one wants to lose their place at university, but at the same time we don’t want to sacrifice our right to defend ourselves with our words.”
Jacques, who is transgender, is one of the leaders of Reclaim Sussex and is involved with Anti Terf Sussex, the two most prominent groups spearheading the campaign....
The group’s suggested reading includes an essay by Christa Peterson, a PhD student at the University of Southern California. For the past two years years, Peterson has led a Twitter campaign against Stock, culminating in the essay published earlier this year.
She has launched similar broadsides against other philosophers she disagrees with, telling one to “f*** off”.
Earlier this week Stock wrote on Twitter that a letter from the University and College Union, which failed to denounce the attacks on her, had “effectively ended her career”. Peterson mocked the tweet by posting pictures of different letters and saying that they had ended her career.
Peterson said that while she had been a vocal critic of Stock, she had not called for her resignation. She said: “I believe what protesting students have said about Professor Stock’s impact on the climate for trans students, and I think the university is obligated to find ways to mitigate it.”
UPDATE (October 16, 2021): A few observations about the preceding, prompted by emails or DMs on Twitter from readers:
1. If all the Sussex students are doing is protesting, then it's hard to see why anyone would lose their place at university over this. That's true even if the students are, wrongly, calling for Professor Stock to be sacked. (As someone aptly put it on Twitter: "'No one wants to lose their place at university' says student wanting professor to lose her place at university.'") But perhaps the students are doing things that are unlawful or barred by university rules, which is why they need anonymity? I don't know. On the other hand, as the article reports, they may simply be worried about online abuse, which is a reasonable worry. As the article also quotes Professor Stock observing: "I sympathise with my critics’ fear of online abuse and misrepresentation, a reality I am highly familiar with."
2. One wonders how the University is supposed "to find ways to mitigate" the alleged "impact on the climate for trans students" of Professor Stock's lawful views, lawfully expressed, without, in fact, abridging her academic freedom and freedom of expression?
3. A correspondent points out to me that Ms. Peterson apparently thinks she has been defamed by this line in the article: "She has launched similar broadsides against other philosophers she disagrees with, telling one to 'f*** off'." This level of self-deception is astonishing. It's a matter of the public record that Ms. Peterson has, at various times, told all philosophers to "fuck off" and also has tweeted "Fuck Brian Leiter." (There are probably other examples, given her track record of abusive behavior on Twitter, but I'll just focus on these two.) So her libel claim would either be: "I told all philosophers to 'fuck off,' not just one" or "I only said 'Fuck Brian Leiter,' not 'Fuck off Brian Leiter'." When the judge finished laughing, s/he would note that the statement in the article is (as the law says) "substantially true," which is a defense to a libel claim. (The Times, rather generously, has actually edited the original version slightly, although without in any way changing the basic and apt takeaway: Ms. Peterson's trademarks are insults, abuse and mockery of her perceived opponents, together with misrepresenting them.)
Recent Comments