The assertion of religious political power »« She has always been drawn to holes

Nicola Dandridge speaks

I’ve just been listening to Today’s Today programme on UUK and gender segregation. I’ve got to run off so will post later but there it is for your listening pleasure fury. It starts just before 2 hrs 10.

I find Dandridge simply astonishing. I can hardly believe what I’m hearing. Fortunately Justin Webb sounds almost as incredulous as I am, and he keeps pushing back.

Jack Straw is very definite about what he thinks.

The BBC and everyone really needs to stop saying UUK represents UK universities, because (if David Colqhoun is right, and I think he would know) it doesn’t, it represents the vice-chancellors, not the universities. That does make a difference.

Dandridge actually seems to think that not acceding to an external speaker’s demand that the audience be segregated by gender is a violation of free speech. She certainly says that.

Comments

  1. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    I saw this headline and thought, “Oh, please, oh, please! Come on, gimme a Voltaire!

    Les dés m’a exaucé.

  2. Jayne Hunter says

    Absolutely extraordinary! This interview could be used in a philosophy class as an example of muddled thinking. I’m glad I’m an old woman, I don’t like the way the world is turning, we seem to be on the verge of losing something of great value. Jayne

  3. Maureen Brian says

    There was time in the UK when Vice Chancellors were either esteemed academics or people given a plum job as a reward for a life of public service – with the emphasis on service.

    Now – and the fact that they are prepared to be represented by this woman confirms it – they are all about money and marketing and selling your brain for 30 pieces of silver.

    I was a little surprised to discover that I easily remembered the name of “my” Vice Chancellor, Sir Charles Morris, which is pretty good going after 50 years! How many of today’s Vice Chancellors will be remembered in 2063?

  4. Bjarte Foshaug says

    So now “free speech” means that others have to accept any ridiculous conditions I might have to be willing to express my opinions? Ok, henceforth I refuse to say what I think unless everyone pays me $1000, therefore anyone who refuses to pay is violating my right to free speech. Censorship! Thought-police! Silencing!

  5. Pen says

    Dandridge actually seems to think that not acceding to an external speaker’s demand that the audience be segregated by gender is a violation of free speech.

    The other side of the freedom of speech coin, perhaps the main side, is freedom to listen and the equality of listeners. It’s also equal freedom to reply, but that becomes an act of speech in its own right.

  6. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Pen,

    No. One does not have any entitlement to have listeners.

    Furthermore, if the external speaker demands segregation, and the university “imposes” (their word) segregation as they would under this policy, the audience freedom is where?

    Try again. You are seriously failing to grok.

  7. dmcclean says

    @9
    I don’t think @8 said what you think they said. “freedom to listen” != “entitlement to have listeners“.

  8. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @dmcclean

    Reading it again, it’s possible that you’re right.

    But the idiocy of saying this is about the listeners when the entire scenario in question was listeners being segregated at the request of the speaker – not by individual choice of seating – was so extreme and the scenario was so clearly about the speaker’s ability to dictate to listeners and not about “ability to listen” that I interpreted it as if the statement was relevant to the discussion.

    I now believe that you are more probably correct and that Pen merely had no idea what was being discussed and nothing at all relevant to contribute.

    So Pen was not wrong, just engaging in idiotic non-sequiturs as if someone somewhere was arguing that certain people should be denied by government the right to listen to words spoken publicly.

    I think it makes Pen only look more incompetent and ridiculous, but if that’s where the chips fall…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>