Open mindedness and free thinking are not allowed or else the cancel crowd will get you.
Ganging up on someone with different views simply to eliminate them from the discourse became the new way to promote the only correct set of opinions.
My children will go to a uni in few years and I'm completely terrified by the amount of nonsense or straight out lunacy in growing parts of academia these days.
It’s not even as if the people who “cancel” strangers for deliberately making bigoted and hateful remarks or committing workplace sexual harassment are the same people who “cancel” professors from speaking about a difficult topic in the academia. You can call it a culture, but it’s not the same people with the same ideals. Plenty of those who are vocal against bigotry would agree that professors who research on difficult topics must be allowed to talk in universities, as long as the content of their talks are actually academic/scientific, and not just outright bigoted.
Are you claiming that any discussion that someone or some group deems "outdated", "conventional" or "unsophisticated deserves to be suppressed on those grounds, and that those who defend such views are to be treated in the manner Stock has been treated?
What gender theory posits is controversial, to say the least, and it is itself quite new and highly problematic despite what your claims seem to suggest. Stock is also a feminist which belies the notion that she is defending anything that could conceivably be characterized as a traditional understanding of the subject matter.
I think the much more concerning, practical danger to our childrens' intellectual health and spirit is the more general phenomenon of extreme political hatred (see point A. above).
Have you ever considered that maybe you're simply uncomfortable with how the world has changed since you were young?
Unrelated side-note: Never heard the word "untrammelled" before https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/untramme...
That's being very generous to the article, which is long on what she's accused of, and very short on what she actually said. While her accusers are quoted numerous times, the accused gets only a single sentence:
However, many trans women are still males with male genitalia, many are sexually attracted to females, and they should not be in places where females undress or sleep in a completely unrestricted way.
As 'male' was clearly referring to biology, the first two statements are an accurate summary of empirical facts . Only the third statement is opinion. It is left as an exercise to the reader whether that opinion is deserving of the backlash she faced.
 [Trans-people] reported identifying their sexual orientation as something other than straight at a rate of 77%. - https://www.thetaskforce.org/wonky-wednesday-trans-people-se...
Seems like an odd thing to instantly dismiss one for.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
If its the latter, absolutely in agreement, you shouldn't be fired for beliefs. If its the former, that's a little more complicated, I guess me not being familiar with how Philosophy is taught in university doesn't help. You obviously don't want to punish certain beliefs, but then surely by allowing them, especially if you have a professor which holds that opinion personally as well, you just end up punishing the opposing belief (in this case, a student arguing for trans rights may be marked lower because the professor disagrees and not because its incorrect, something I hear in other courses is not uncommon at all).
So yeh, if its the latter, thats fine and I agree with the solidarity, if its the former, I have no idea. Or I could be completely misinformed
It's still pretty Socratic, meaning that the professor doesn't just tell the students what their own views are but gives a range of views - usually although not always a very wide range.
I've co-taught a course with one of the signatories of this letter. At the end of the course, one of the smartest students went to them outside class and said to them "Okay, but what do you personally think?" They said what they personally thought, and the student said "That's pretty much the opposite of what I would have guessed from your course." Not all professors are exactly like that, of course, but it's not too far from the norm either.
Obviously not really anything like Philosophy so perhaps its treated more or less seriously depending on the subject, but I remember my younger brother telling me about a bad professor he had during uni when he was studying film, who would mark students down who didn't agree with her. I guess in film thats annoying, whereas in Philosophy the consequences are far more serious, so stopping that kind of thing is probably treated with more care. These are just guesses by me though
Popularity of this relatively new orthodoxy is a big assumption. Its proponents are certainly loud, but are they really great in number and greater in number than its opponents? It seems unlikely.
Long story short: The Union made a strong statement without naming her (this reminds me something interesting. In internal fights of the Communist Party, they like make this kind of strongly worded public statements without naming the enemy), but the university supported her academic freedom.