The Mail reports today that an Exeter University philosophy student was threatened with expulsion in 2018 after he was overheard through the wall of his room by a neighbour who took exception to his views:
A philosophy student overheard through the wall of his room saying “veganism is wrong” and “gender fluidity is stupid” was threatened with expulsion by his university, the Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Robert Ivinson said he was disciplined after a student next door in halls of residence at Exeter University heard the comments then complained he had been offensive and “transphobic”.
Mr. Ivinson, who expressed the views in a phone call to a friend, was hauled before university officials and put on a ‘behavioural contract’ for the rest of his studies.
It seems, according to the Mail’s description, that the university authorities are effectively sentencing students in absentia:
He was warned he could be expelled if the university thought he had done anything else wrong, and told by letter he had been found guilty of harassment.
Edward Skidelsky – director of the Committee for Academic Freedom, academics fighting to maintain free expression on campuses – said: “It’s extraordinary that in 21st Century Britain eavesdroppers can be rewarded, and a student punished for remarks made to a friend in the privacy of his room.
“Robert’s case once again underlines the insidious erosion of the freedom to express opinions and ideas which is playing out at our universities.”
Although Mr. Ivinson, who is still studying at Exeter, experienced the University’s disciplinary system several years ago he has only recently felt able to talk about the incident, thanks to support from the Committee for Academic Freedom.
When an officer from the University’s estate patrol banged on his door to tell him his female neighbour had complained, the mature student was shaken.
“It was like the Stasi had come to my door,” he said. “He stuck his foot in my door and said you’ve been saying some very offensive things.“
Mr. Ivinson was called to a disciplinary hearing and grilled by university officials.
It’s not clear what the most remarkable aspect of this story is: the eavesdropping neighbour who dobbed him in; the University employee who enthusiastically went round to Mr. Ivinson’s room to threaten him for daring to criticise Veganism; or Exeter for punishing him for holding non-conformist views. Whichever it was, the comparison with the Stasi and East Germany seems uncomfortably appropriate.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I would challenge the statement that his views were non-confomist, other than with the unwritten rules of the University thought police.
Go to uni, get re-educated!
Diseducated.
This is stunning. I thought it was only in Scotland that it was unlawful to say anything in the privacy of your own “home” that might upset the Meltorati?
It is.
However they’re saying it goes against the university policy not the law.
Still a completely wrong attitude but that’ll be why the dwelling defence doesn’t apply
I don’t think a university has a right to police what people say on campus, let alone during private phonecalls. This guy is not one of their employees but one of their customers and he’s paying a fair lot of money for that and can thus expect better treatment. Considering that they guy is rather tall, he should simply have demanded that the university enforcement clown immediately leaves a room he’s paying rent for and have thrown him out if he didn’t. Nobody short of the police will ever get through my door except by invitation.
I would suggest that it is only our present capabilities of international trade and industry that enables those who wish to be vegan, vegetarian, or what ever diet they desire to have to exist. Without the import of foreign food stuffs we would not be able to feed ourselves let alone have variable dietary proclivities, which in turn have the need of additional supplements normally attained by an omnivorous diet.
As with a lot of cults and fashions of today, very few would exist without our current trade and industry, giving us the time and pace to pursue these activities. However, all of which is being constantly eroded by Net Zero agendas and on target to disappear. When the food runs out and we live on a subsistence diet for those who are still alive, veganism would be a low priority, whereas the neighbours poodle on the other hand………..?
I would like to back up your statement with the link to this article yesterday in TCW Biofuel lunacy and the return of the hungry horses – The Conservative Woman It is a sobering read and points out how hard it was until very recently to produce a surplus of food.
Very true, and I say that as a gluten free vegetarian. But then I’ve never had the slightest interest in berating others for making different choices or trying to “convert” them and I don’t think eating meat is “wrong” or “evil” at all so perhaps I’m not the most typical vegetarian!
I do think it’s funny how there are so many supplements now marketed towards vegans, which is such a great, amazing, healthy and natural lifestyle but don’t forget, if you don’t take all these extra vitamins you’ll become deficient… Nothing to do with not eating animal products, which are unnatural and wrong. Just one of those things.
And don’t forget: The solution to all this private businesses going amok wrt other peoples lives is SHRINK THE STATEEE!!! as this will certainly make private business officers change their behaviour overnight by magic.
NB: That’s sarcasm. I’m, however, honestly surprised that nobody reposted this patent solution to all problems of the world so far.
What has happened in the six years since this incident took place, apart from the student returning to the same university on the same course? (Ironically, surely Philosophy should be one subject that encourages debate?)The situation seems to even worse than it was in universities some fifteen years ago. In a different mass psychotic delirium, anybody on a university teaching course (and probably other courses) in those days who was suspected of, or expressed, scepticism over the notion that humans were making the global climate warmer was likely to face a disciplinary inquiry. The difference was that at least the scepticism needed to be expressed in discussion with other students in semi-public locations such as the bar, or even during a course seminar, rather than privately as in the Ivinson case. Perhaps snitch culture predated Covid, which in turn exposed just how many in the general population are prepared to snitch on their neighbours, presumably feeling virtuous for doing so.
Let’s see how CAF fare in dealing with this case and many others they are aware of; they will face stiff opposition.
Thank you to Sallust and the DS for the link to this astonishing Daily Mail article, because even though I usually scroll through their headlines most days, they never include important articles like this one in their list. This has happened several times, and makes me appreciate the Daily Sceptic even more.
This case happened some six years ago; some six days ago the police and a psychologist turned up at the house of a Christian who had dared to express an online opinion about the Australian church attacker, who was also attended by a forensic psychologist. Perhaps these cases will lead to expensive court-room thought-crime cases in which “thought experts” battle over whether having a thought is a crime, a mental illness, or both.
In addition to being opposed to freedom of expression, the leftist deep state is also opposed to due process. In many areas of life state officials are being granted quasi-judicial authority and issue verdicts without the accused having the opportunity to give evidence, challenge his or her accuser, and scrutinise the evidence of the accuser.
One problem is redaction and denial of access to records. Sometimes the evidence, held on file by a state official who initially denies its existence, will be withheld from a judge, or presented only in a redacted form. In principle one can argue that the redaction should be lifted, but this meets a counter-argument that it would breach some confidentiality principle, or is “not in the public interest”. This happens especially when the unredacted evidence, though useful to the prosecution in the case in point, would also inevitably lead to disclosure of malfeasance in public office, or disclosure of police procedure, or police decisions not to prosecute state officials. This cuts both ways: a manifestly “guilty” case can be dropped because the state does not wish to disclose the evidence supporting guilt, but an incorrect “guilty” verdict can result because the defendant does not have access to unredacted helpful evidence, and may indeed be unaware of its existence. The tendency of judges is simply to accept whatever the state official suggests regarding the progress of the case and the acquisition and admissibility of evidence. The average citizen won’t in any case have the resources to fund a legal challenge to missing or redacted evidence.
This all adds up to “due process” being pretty well absent in many cases in the UK.
The most remarkable thing is that after 6 years he’s still at uni! Time he got out, started earning a living and pay some taxes.
I remember being in Belgrade around 1985. This was ofcourse in the old Yugoslavia, part of the Soviet Union. My main memory of the place was one where there were plenty of people going about but there was no hubbub. Everyone was much quieter than what I was used to in western streets. —-I suspected they were like this because of the oppression and fear of saying something that would have the authorities hauling them off to the gulag. Now this was 40 years ago and it was only my impression, but what I see happening now in the western world is reminding me of those impressions I had in a country behind the Iron Curtain. —–Scary.
Belgrade / Yugoslavia wasn’t in the Soviet Union. That was the whole point!
I apologise for my error. But it was a communist country and I felt that the people were oppressed when I was there. That was the main point I was trying to make when making comparisons to how we are today bludgeoned with wokery and hate crime gagging orders in the west.
Fair enough. I think people had a lot more freedom in the Yugi countries than in the USSR though (I have quite a few Serbian friends). I did visit East Germany in the early 80s and it was pretty sombre.
I also went to China a few years ago for work and met people who were terrified. That really was scary. It was before they started cracking down in HK and I remember the immense feeling of relief when crossing from mainland China into HK.
Exeter is my alma mater. When I was there (looong time ago) it was so right wing that we actually had a Conservative President of the Students’ Union. Not that we had anything so socialist as a union, it was the Guild of Students.
Now I get the alumni letter which is about as woke as you can get, including lauding another alumna who is working in Climate Diplomacy at the Foreign Office. Who knew that was a thing?
What is the point of ‘universities’ (often souped-up polytechnics) anymore? It was Idiot Blair who wanted 50% of school-leavers to attend university thereby devaluing a university degree and breeding mickey-mouse courses for the intellectually challenged.
Add to that the dire lack of respect for free speech, freedom of thought and a questioning attitude in the faculty/student body for a number of years and universities are now nothing more than hotbeds of ridiculous wokeism & destructive marxism.
Plus students are burdened with tuition fees and debts they might never pay off.
Thirty to forty years ago I made some sacrifices for my children to go to uni, but today I would beg young people not to think of giving those degraded places their custom or money.