Arts, Education, Philosophy, Research, Society

Oxford academic to launch ‘journal of controversial ideas’

ACADEMIA & RESEARCH

A “controversial ideas” journal where researchers can publish articles anonymously will be launched this year by an Oxford University academic.

The journal is in apparent response to a rise in researchers being criticised and silenced by those who disagree with them. The revelation came towards the end of last year by Jeff McMahan, a professor of moral philosophy at Oxford.

“There is an increasing tendency that I see within academia and outside for people to try to suppress views they don’t like and treat them as wicked and unspeakable, rather than confront those views and refute them,” he said.

The phenomenon of attempting to shut down views you disagree with has become “very pronounced” among young people and those on the Left, he said, adding that academics also feared being censured by their university administrations.

He cited the example of Prof Nigel Biggar, a fellow Oxford academic, being “targeted” after he suggested that people should have “pride” about aspects of their imperialist past. More than 50 professors, lecturers and researchers signed an open letter expressing their “firm rejection” of his views. Prof Biggar later revealed that young academics were afraid of damaging their careers if they were seen with him.

Another example he gave was when the Oxford Students For Life group invited speakers to discuss the legislation surrounding abortion in Ireland. “They were shut down by a feminist group and unable to proceed,” Prof McMahan said.

A newly formed group of over 100 academics from UK universities has raised concerns about “the suppression of proper academic analysis and discussion of the social phenomenon of transgenderism”.

They said that members of their group had experienced campus protests, calls for dismissal in the press, harassment, foiled plots to bring about dismissal, no-platforming, and attempts to censure academic research and publications.

Francesca Minerva, a bioethicist at the University of Ghent in Belgium, approached Prof McMahan about setting up The Journal of Controversial Ideas after she received death threats due to her academic research.

She had to seek police protection following the publication of an article she co-authored in the Journal of Medical Ethics which defended the permissibility of early infanticide in a certain range of cases. Prof McMahan said that the new cross-disciplinary publication, which is due to launch this year, would be fully peer-reviewed in line with normal academic standards.

He said that he and Peter Singer, the prominent Australian philosopher, were assembling an editorial board that is made up of academics and distinguished people in their fields from across the political and religious spectrum.

OPINION

The publication of a new journal in which academics may write under pseudonyms, for fear of retribution, is truly alarming. The motive for the founding of this new Journal of Controversial Ideas is to avoid persecution by the universities that employ contributors.

This is not like a medieval inquisition; it is actually worse. In the High Middle Ages scholars publicly debated points of controversy – quodlibets, they were called – and no thesis was too outlandish to defend. Today we see closed-shop “academies”, in history or science, monstering anyone who dares to venture outside the fashionable consensus.

To suggest, for instance, that the British Empire had its good points and – bang – the solid weight of academe will likely fall on those making the claims. When even universities won’t favour free and open discussion, the resort to pseudonyms and anonymity convicts them of betrayal.

Standard
Arts, Britain, Education, History, India, Literature, Poetry

Snowflake students censor ‘racist’ Kipling

RUDYARD KIPLING

Intro: Students at Manchester University have painted over classic verses of Kipling’s IF poem that was put on the wall of the university to inspire hard work.

STUDENTS have been branded “snowflakes” after removing a poem by the Victorian writer Rudyard Kipling from a university wall over claims that he was “racist”.

Undergraduates at the University of Manchester painted over a mural featuring the celebrated poem “IF” in their students’ union. Students feared it would upset ethnic minorities.

The 1895 work contains no reference to race, but the students said it was still offensive because some of Kipling’s other works are about colonialism.

His 1899 poem The White Man’s Burden has been criticised in modern times for advocating colonialism and portraying other races as inferior.

It is the latest in a string of similar incidents involving students trying to remove references to controversial historical figures at universities.

Kipling’s IF gives advice about how to be a strong and resilient man and has often been used to inspire young people, because it advocates self-discipline and hard work.

Staff at the students’ union commissioned a local artist to paint it to motivate undergraduates in their studies.

But the union’s student representatives complained that they had not been consulted and decided to have it removed.

They replaced it with the 1978 poem “Still I Rise” by American civil rights activist Maya Angelou, which was read by Nelson Mandela at his presidential inauguration in 1994.

A Welfare officer from the university told The Tab website: “We noticed an artist had painted a Rudyard Kipling poem in the students’ union. This was done without our consultation or approval.

“This was especially problematic given the poet’s imperialistic and racist work such as The White Man’s Burden, where Kipling explains how it is the responsibility of white men to ‘civilise’ black and Asian people through colonialism.

“We decided to paint over that poem and replace it with Still I Rise by Maya Angelou, a poem about resilience and overcoming our history by a brilliant black woman.”

A spokesperson for the union said: “We understand that we made a mistake in our approach to a recent piece of artwork by failing to garner student opinion at the start of a new project. We accept that the result was inappropriate and for that we apologise.”

It was added that the union would make changes to “guarantee that student voices are heard and considered properly” so that “every outcome is representative of our membership”.

“We’re working closely with the union’s elected officers to learn all we can from this situation and are looking forward to introducing powerful, relevant and meaningful art installations across the student’s union building over the coming months.”

Chris McGovern, of the Campaign for Real Education, criticised the Manchester students, saying: “This is outrageous cultural vandalism. Kipling is a much beloved poet.

“These students are closing off access to one of our most popular poems and it is Liberal Fascism.

“They are snowflakes who should not be indulged. Forcing your views on other people should have no place in British society.”

The University of Manchester said it would not be appropriate to comment because the students’ union is an independent body.

It comes after Oxford University students led an unsuccessful campaign to tear down a statue of the 19th century imperialist Cecil Rhodes. They also forced the university authorities to move a portrait of Theresa May by putting up signs saying she was “hostile” to immigrants.

At Bristol, students tried to force the authorities to change the name of a building named after benefactor Henry Overton Wills III, a cigarette maker whose family company was said to have benefitted from slavery.

Critics have said it is wrong for students to try to censor the past and that they should instead view writers and figures in their historical context.

 

ONCE revered as the Bard of Empire, Rudyard Kipling has often been viewed as something of an embarrassment in the post-colonial world.

Critics often point to his poem Gunga Din (1890), which is written from the point of view of an English soldier in India about an Indian water-bearer, and lines from his novel Kim (1901) such as “My experience is that one can never fathom the Oriental mind” as examples of how he was a racist. But academics also say that he had a deep infinity with India and was often affectionate towards the Indian subjects of his work.

Rana Mitter, professor of the history and politics of modern China at Oxford University, who has a Bengali family background, describes Kipling as “very respectful of India as a culture and society”.

Professor Mitter said: “Kipling understood India better than his British contemporaries. If you read a poem like Gunga Din you’ll see that it isn’t contemptuous of India at all, but is respectful.

“However, Kipling was a product of late-Victorian Britain and had prejudices that were commonplace at that time.”

The Oxford University professor has also said that Kipling’s “The Ballad Of East And West”, which contains the famous line “East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet”, is more problematic.

Born in Bombay in 1865, Kipling was sent away to school in England when he was five.

In 1882 he returned to India, where he worked for newspapers. Aside from his poetry, among his best-known work is The Jungle Book from 1894, which became a children’s classic and inspired a film produced by Walt Disney in 1967. He died in 1936.

. Appendage

IF

Standard
Education, Science

Questions of Science: Push and pull

Questions of Science

Intro: Why, in an atom, does the negatively charged electron not collapse into the positively charged nucleus? Is this in any way similar to the reason why large systems like stars and planets do not collapse into each other under the pull of gravity?

When Ernest Rutherford, the New Zealand-born founder of nuclear physics, first discovered the atomic nucleus he did indeed propose that electrons did not fall toward the nucleus of the atom because the attractive forces of the nucleus were being balanced by the orbital velocity of the electron in much the same way as a planet orbiting a star.

However, the Danish physicist Niels Bohr modified this theory after Albert Einstein and Max Planck found that energy could only exist in certain discrete amounts, or quanta. This meant that electrons could be seen to have both wave and particle properties, and required that the circumference of the orbit of an electron could not be zero. This means, of course, it could never reach the nucleus.

We have since adopted the model proposed by the Austrian theoretical physicist Erwin Schrödinger. Instead of orbiting the nucleus like planets, his model has electrons occupying ‘clouds’ where it is statistically probable that they will exist, although we may never determine an electron’s position and velocity at the same time.

Niels Bohr’s questioning in 1913 deserves further explanation. The atom was known to have a small heavy nucleus, and the much lighter electrons were thought to orbit it like planets around the sun. As long as a planet does not lose energy, it can continue its orbit indefinitely.

According to the laws of electromagnetism, charged particles moving in a circle ought to radiate energy as waves. Bohr calculated that a hydrogen atom should collapse with a flash of light in a matter of femtoseconds. Because this does not happen, he proposed what has become known as the ‘old’ quantum mechanics. It asserted that the electron’s angular momentum had to be a multiple of Planck’s constant.

The rule meant that electrons could only occupy particular orbits, and there was a minimum size of orbit. Using this, Bohr was able to predict the entire spectrum of excited states of hydrogen, which was a quite astounding achievement.

But Bohr’s theory was hard to apply to more complex atoms and was superseded by Erwin Schrödinger’s wave mechanics in 1927, which is the start of modern quantum theory.

Schrödinger’s formulation shows that an electron has a wave character, and a stable atom can be thought of as a box confining the wave. An electron has a wavelength equal to Planck’s constant divided by its momentum, so the faster an electron moves, the shorter its wavelength. To confine the electron near the nucleus the electron must move very quickly.

Conversely, a fast-moving electron can escape the pull of the nucleus. So you can think of the size of an atom as resulting from a compromise between the electrons having enough kinetic energy for their waves to fit in the box, but not so much that they can escape.

Large solar systems don’t collapse for quantum-mechanical reasons. They don’t collapse because the planets’ velocities keep them in freefall.


Science in motion

Science-in-motion: a series of short articles following topics in science.

. Atomic structure

Atoms consist of a tiny dense nucleus containing positively charged protons and uncharged neutrons, surrounded by clouds of electrons. Because protons and neutrons are much heavier than electrons, most of an atom’s mass resides in the central nucleus.

Each chemical element has a unique number of protons in its nucleus, its ‘atomic number’. For instance, the element carbon with six protons has the atomic number six. However, single elements can have different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus. For example, carbon has three naturally occurring ‘isotopes’ with six, seven or eight neutrons. The sum of protons and neutrons in an atom’s nucleus is called the atomic mass number.

Normally, the net electric charge of an atom is zero because the number of electrons is the same as the number of protons, and their equal and opposite electric charges cancel out. However, it’s possible to knock electrons out of atoms or add extra ones to create positively or negatively charged particles known as ‘ions’.

Atomic Structure

. Negatively charged electrons in orbit around the nucleus . Nucleus containing positively charged protons and neutrons

 

Standard