Criticising China’s Covid lockdowns is a “microaggression”, a university has told professors. The Telegraph has the story.
The University of Surrey’s mandatory online module for staff, titled ‘introduction to race equity’, includes several examples of so-called microaggressions, or subtle remarks or actions that some find offensive.
Academics are told that they should not critique the Communist Party’s zero-Covid draconian lockdown measures, which have seen millions locked in their homes, as Chinese students may feel they are simply “caring more about others”.
Students are encouraged to anonymously report such perceived slights on a “Report + Support” webpage and scholars are urged “to seek advice from human resources regarding next steps” if they are reported…
The Telegraph can reveal that bosses at the university, based in Guildford, are facing a revolt from more than a dozen of their own academics who accuse them of “policing conformity with controversial moral and/or political beliefs” of what they say, and even the readings they assign to students.
The row centres on the provost, Tim Dunne, seeking to “morally evaluate academics” with a new appraisal criteria that requires managers to mark them on their pursuit of “fairer outcomes”, demonstrate “inclusive educational practice” and “actively champion initiatives to promote diversity and fairness in our community”.
Thirteen academics are trying to defeat the new marking criteria at a vote of the university’s senate on Thursday night, claiming it “would create significant new legal and institutional risks for the university”.
In a letter to the senate, the rebels cite how they may be “deemed non-inclusive” for committing the “prohibited microaggression [of] criticism of the Chinese Government’s Covid policies”.
The academics warn: “An academic who believes any of these things, or who criticises Chinese Government policies, will soon be able to complain to regulators under the new Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill on grounds that the university is failing to meet its positive legal duty to ‘take steps to secure freedom of speech’.”
They added: “Worse, this video gives academics a reason to fear that such criticism could result in their being subjected to disciplinary action under the university’s new ‘zero tolerance’ approach to microaggressions.”
They also fear they could be punished for not making student marks “more equal”, due to there being no consensus on what constitutes “fair outcomes”, and may be marked down for not endorsing the university’s guidance on decolonising curricula to ensure it does not “reflect a western-dominated view”.
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.
That is basically modern society. A centralised bureaucracy spending confiscated money like drunken sailors.
2.6 trillion in public debt and counting.
Literally insane behaviour.
“Literally insane behaviour.”
Not insane if the real intention is to bankrupt the country.
Tbh, I’ve lost faith in the idea that there are people with a grand masterplan, scheming away at the construction of a new world order.
I think there are lots of different people scheming away at their own individual plans to enrich themselves, or keep themselves in power or boost themselves somehow.
And when it comes to the money, they don’t give a damn because racking up debt has long been accepted as a modus operandi. The way I see it, they all think “Why am I going to be the one to be sensible, when no one else is? I’m going to milk it like everyone else until the whole thing goes tits up.”
Basically there are no incentives to be sensible. All the incentives are to spend, spend, spend. And anyone who tries to hold back is basically being an idiot.
Which is not to say that there aren’t some central planners scheming away at how to take advantage of the moment when it all goes tits up. CBDCs being the obvious one. But again, all for their own narrow interest. I think, anyway.
I agree insofar is the useful idiots further down the food chain are concerned, but the Lockdowns & mandates with all the censorship were too coordinated.
I stick to my view that One World Government is the plan. Anything done by ‘the Establishment’ is deliberate. I am way past cock-ups.
This would be considered to be best practice in trauma informed care. I certainly wouldn’t be focusing too much on this. There are plenty of other aspects to this enquiry that need our attention.
Off-T
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/this-cruel-and-dangerous-push-for-the-measles-jab-remind-you-of-anything/
A superbly researched article by Sally Beck at TCW looking at the lies spouted by those who know better around “vaccination.” The measles hysteria is properly demolished as is the modelling dishonesty.
Strange that millions can be made available for “emotional support services” but governments refuse to pay compensation for real, life-altering vaccine injuries. Very strange.
How about some emotional support for all the people who were victimized by the disciples of Sarst COVID during their attempts to fake a global emergency?
“The inquiry really needs to focus on what most people want it to do, which is why we had to have – any lockdowns at all, or any of the other pointless and damaging inhumane and ill-advised measures – other than possibly some measures akin to those suggested by the Great Barrington Declaration, or Sweden light! AKA the measures we already had.
And no explanation why they changed the Influenza Paper that Sweden followed, or why the changed it from HCID to medium risk. I think enough people have a good hunch why on here for the latter, so they can’t make repurposed drugs like HQC available.
“so they can’t make repurposed drugs like HQC available.”
That is exactly why the C1984 was downgraded.
Lionel Shriver has written a fabulous piece in Unherd about the insanity of social manias. I can’t recommend it highly enough.