Skip to main content

Home/ New Media Ethics 2009 course/ Group items tagged workplace

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Magdaleine

Workplace Surveillance - 5 views

Link: http://news.cnet.com/Judges-protest-workplace-surveillance/2100-1023_3-271457.html Summary: A panel of influential judges are taking a closer look at the issue of electronic monitoring at ...

workplace surveillance

started by Low Yunying on 09 Sep 09 1 follow-up, last by Magdaleine on 10 Sep 09
Weiman Kow

Think you're a good employee? Office snooping software can tell - CNN.com - 1 views

edition.cnn.com/...index.html

office surveillance

shared by Weiman Kow on 27 Sep 09 - Cached
  • More than that, Killock believes using such software can have a negative psychological impact on a workplace. "It is a powerful signal that you do not fully trust the people you are paying or perhaps don't invest the time and care to properly manage them," he says.
    • Weiman Kow
      Weiman Kow on 27 Sep 09
       
      the presentation group brought up this point.. =)
  • Ultimately, true privacy only begins outside the workplace -- and the law supports that. In the United States, at least all email and other electronic content created on the employer's equipment belongs to the employer, not the employee. Slackers would do well to remember that.
  • But Charnock is keen to stress Cataphora isn't only about bosses spying on their team -- it works both ways.
    • Weiman Kow
      Weiman Kow on 27 Sep 09
       
      Is that really true?
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Our software builds a multi-dimensional model of normal behavior,
  • the emails they send, the calls they make and the documents they write.
  • [We can tell] who is really being consulted by other employees, and on which topics; who is really making decisions
  • The software began as a tool to assist lawyers with the huge corporate databases often subpoenaed as evidence in trials but has now moved into human resources.
  • We do have extensive filters to try to weed out people who are highly productive in areas such as sports banter and knowledge of local bars,
  • Weiman Kow on 27 Sep 09
     
    Just a link on advances in extensive office surveillance - this program is supposed to "separate the good employees from the bad by analyzing workers 'electronic footprints' -- the emails they send, the calls they make and the documents they write"
Valerie Oon

players' nightmare: don't date him bulletin - 3 views

http://dontdatehimgirl.com allows women to post warnings about 'bad dates' to prevent potential heartbreak for other women. These posts can contain very personal information about the 'jerk' in que...

privacy surveillance

started by Valerie Oon on 09 Sep 09 no follow-up yet
Weiye Loh

Rational Irrationality: Do Good Kindergarten Teachers Raise their Pupils' Wages? : The ... - 0 views

www.newyorker.com/...-raise-their-pupils-wages.html

Education Science Evolution

shared by Weiye Loh on 01 Aug 10 - Cached
  • Columnist David Leonhardt reports the findings of a new study which suggests that children who are fortunate enough to have an unusually good kindergarten teacher can expect to make roughly an extra twenty dollars a week by the age of twenty-seven.
  • it implies that during each school year a good kindergarten teacher creates an additional $320,000 of earnings.
  • The new research (pdf), the work of six economists—four from Harvard, one from Berkeley, and one from Northwestern—upends this finding. It is based on test scores and demographic data from a famous experiment carried out in Tennessee during the late nineteen-eighties, which tracked the progress of about 11,500 students from kindergarten to third grade. Most of these students are now about thirty years old, which means they have been working for up to twelve years. The researchers also gained access to income-tax data and matched it up with the test scores. Their surprising conclusion is that the uplifting effect of a good kindergarten experience, after largely disappearing during a child’s teen years, somehow reappears in the adult workplace. (See Figure 7 in the paper.) Why does this happen? The author don’t say, but Leonhardt offers this explanation: “Good early education can impart skills that last a lifetime—patience, discipline, manners, perseverance. The tests that 5-year-olds take may pick up these skills, even if later multiple-choice tests do not.”
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • However, as I read the story and the findings it is based upon, some questions crept into my mind. I relate them not out of any desire to discredit the study, which is enterprising and newsworthy, but simply as a warning to parents and policymakers not to go overboard.
  • from a dense academic article that hasn’t been published or peer reviewed. At this stage, there isn’t even a working paper detailing how the results were arrived at: just a set of slides. Why is this important? Because economics is a disputatious subject, and surprising empirical findings invariably get challenged by rival groups of researchers. The authors of the paper include two rising stars of the economics profession—Berkeley’s Emmanuel Saez and Harvard’s Raj Chetty—both of whom have reputations for careful and rigorous work. However, many other smart researchers have had their findings overturned. That is how science proceeds. Somebody says something surprising, and others in the field try to knock it down. Sometimes they succeed; sometimes they don’t. Until that Darwinian process is completed, which won’t be for another couple of years, at least, the new findings should be regarded as provisional.
  • A second point, which is related to the first, concerns methodology. In coming up with the $320,000 a year figure for the effects that kindergarten teachers have on adult earnings, the authors make use of complicated statistical techniques, including something called a “jack knife regression.” Such methods are perfectly legitimate and are now used widely in economics, but their application often adds an additional layer of ambiguity to the findings they generate. Is this particular statistical method appropriate for the task at hand? Do other methods generate different results? These are the sorts of question that other researchers will be pursuing.
  • Weiye Loh on 01 Aug 10
     
    JULY 29, 2010 DO GOOD KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS RAISE THEIR PUPILS' WAGES? Posted by John Cassidy
Weiye Loh

Research integrity: Sabotage! : Nature News - 0 views

www.nature.com/...467516a.html

Science Politics Academic Research

shared by Weiye Loh on 02 Oct 10 - No Cached
  • University of Michigan in Ann Arbor
  • Vipul Bhrigu, a former postdoc at the university's Comprehensive Cancer Center, wears a dark-blue three-buttoned suit and a pinched expression as he cups his pregnant wife's hand in both of his. When Pollard Hines calls Bhrigu's case to order, she has stern words for him: "I was inclined to send you to jail when I came out here this morning."
  • Bhrigu, over the course of several months at Michigan, had meticulously and systematically sabotaged the work of Heather Ames, a graduate student in his lab, by tampering with her experiments and poisoning her cell-culture media. Captured on hidden camera, Bhrigu confessed to university police in April and pleaded guilty to malicious destruction of personal property, a misdemeanour that apparently usually involves cars: in the spaces for make and model on the police report, the arresting officer wrote "lab research" and "cells". Bhrigu has said on multiple occasions that he was compelled by "internal pressure" and had hoped to slow down Ames's work. Speaking earlier this month, he was contrite. "It was a complete lack of moral judgement on my part," he said.
  • ...16 more annotations...
  • Bhrigu's actions are surprising, but probably not unique. There are few firm numbers showing the prevalence of research sabotage, but conversations with graduate students, postdocs and research-misconduct experts suggest that such misdeeds occur elsewhere, and that most go unreported or unpoliced. In this case, the episode set back research, wasted potentially tens of thousands of dollars and terrorized a young student. More broadly, acts such as Bhrigu's — along with more subtle actions to hold back or derail colleagues' work — have a toxic effect on science and scientists. They are an affront to the implicit trust between scientists that is necessary for research endeavours to exist and thrive.
  • Despite all this, there is little to prevent perpetrators re-entering science.
  • federal bodies that provide research funding have limited ability and inclination to take action in sabotage cases because they aren't interpreted as fitting the federal definition of research misconduct, which is limited to plagiarism, fabrication and falsification of research data.
  • In Bhrigu's case, administrators at the University of Michigan worked with police to investigate, thanks in part to the persistence of Ames and her supervisor, Theo Ross. "The question is, how many universities have such procedures in place that scientists can go and get that kind of support?" says Christine Boesz, former inspector-general for the US National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia, and now a consultant on scientific accountability. "Most universities I was familiar with would not necessarily be so responsive."
  • Some labs are known to be hyper-competitive, with principal investigators pitting postdocs against each other. But Ross's lab is a small, collegial place. At the time that Ames was noticing problems, it housed just one other graduate student, a few undergraduates doing projects, and the lab manager, Katherine Oravecz-Wilson, a nine-year veteran of the lab whom Ross calls her "eyes and ears". And then there was Bhrigu, an amiable postdoc who had joined the lab in April 2009.
  • Some people whom Ross consulted with tried to convince her that Ames was hitting a rough patch in her work and looking for someone else to blame. But Ames was persistent, so Ross took the matter to the university's office of regulatory affairs, which advises on a wide variety of rules and regulations pertaining to research and clinical care. Ray Hutchinson, associate dean of the office, and Patricia Ward, its director, had never dealt with anything like it before. After several meetings and two more instances of alcohol in the media, Ward contacted the department of public safety — the university's police force — on 9 March. They immediately launched an investigation — into Ames herself. She endured two interrogations and a lie-detector test before investigators decided to look elsewhere.
  • At 4:00 a.m. on Sunday 18 April, officers installed two cameras in the lab: one in the cold room where Ames's blots had been contaminated, and one above the refrigerator where she stored her media. Ames came in that day and worked until 5:00 p.m. On Monday morning at around 10:15, she found that her medium had been spiked again. When Ross reviewed the tapes of the intervening hours with Richard Zavala, the officer assigned to the case, she says that her heart sank. Bhrigu entered the lab at 9:00 a.m. on Monday and pulled out the culture media that he would use for the day. He then returned to the fridge with a spray bottle of ethanol, usually used to sterilize lab benches. With his back to the camera, he rummaged through the fridge for 46 seconds. Ross couldn't be sure what he was doing, but it didn't look good. Zavala escorted Bhrigu to the campus police department for questioning. When he told Bhrigu about the cameras in the lab, the postdoc asked for a drink of water and then confessed. He said that he had been sabotaging Ames's work since February. (He denies involvement in the December and January incidents.)
  • Misbehaviour in science is nothing new — but its frequency is difficult to measure. Daniele Fanelli at the University of Edinburgh, UK, who studies research misconduct, says that overtly malicious offences such as Bhrigu's are probably infrequent, but other forms of indecency and sabotage are likely to be more common. "A lot more would be the kind of thing you couldn't capture on camera," he says. Vindictive peer review, dishonest reference letters and withholding key aspects of protocols from colleagues or competitors can do just as much to derail a career or a research project as vandalizing experiments. These are just a few of the questionable practices that seem quite widespread in science, but are not technically considered misconduct. In a meta-analysis of misconduct surveys, published last year (D. Fanelli PLoS ONE 4, e5738; 2009), Fanelli found that up to one-third of scientists admit to offences that fall into this grey area, and up to 70% say that they have observed them.
  • Some say that the structure of the scientific enterprise is to blame. The big rewards — tenured positions, grants, papers in stellar journals — are won through competition. To get ahead, researchers need only be better than those they are competing with. That ethos, says Brian Martinson, a sociologist at HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis, Minnesota, can lead to sabotage. He and others have suggested that universities and funders need to acknowledge the pressures in the research system and try to ease them by means of education and rehabilitation, rather than simply punishing perpetrators after the fact.
  • Bhrigu says that he felt pressure in moving from the small college at Toledo to the much bigger one in Michigan. He says that some criticisms he received from Ross about his incomplete training and his work habits frustrated him, but he doesn't blame his actions on that. "In any kind of workplace there is bound to be some pressure," he says. "I just got jealous of others moving ahead and I wanted to slow them down."
  • At Washtenaw County Courthouse in July, having reviewed the case files, Pollard Hines delivered Bhrigu's sentence. She ordered him to pay around US$8,800 for reagents and experimental materials, plus $600 in court fees and fines — and to serve six months' probation, perform 40 hours of community service and undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
  • But the threat of a worse sentence hung over Bhrigu's head. At the request of the prosecutor, Ross had prepared a more detailed list of damages, including Bhrigu's entire salary, half of Ames's, six months' salary for a technician to help Ames get back up to speed, and a quarter of the lab's reagents. The court arrived at a possible figure of $72,000, with the final amount to be decided upon at a restitution hearing in September.
  • Ross, though, is happy that the ordeal is largely over. For the month-and-a-half of the investigation, she became reluctant to take on new students or to hire personnel. She says she considered packing up her research programme. She even questioned her own sanity, worrying that she was the one sabotaging Ames's work via "an alternate personality". Ross now wonders if she was too trusting, and urges other lab heads to "realize that the whole spectrum of humanity is in your lab. So, when someone complains to you, take it seriously."
  • She also urges others to speak up when wrongdoing is discovered. After Bhrigu pleaded guilty in June, Ross called Trempe at the University of Toledo. He was shocked, of course, and for more than one reason. His department at Toledo had actually re-hired Bhrigu. Bhrigu says that he lied about the reason he left Michigan, blaming it on disagreements with Ross. Toledo let Bhrigu go in July, not long after Ross's call.
  • Now that Bhrigu is in India, there is little to prevent him from getting back into science. And even if he were in the United States, there wouldn't be much to stop him. The National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, through its Office of Research Integrity, will sometimes bar an individual from receiving federal research funds for a time if they are found guilty of misconduct. But Bhigru probably won't face that prospect because his actions don't fit the federal definition of misconduct, a situation Ross finds strange. "All scientists will tell you that it's scientific misconduct because it's tampering with data," she says.
  • Ames says that the experience shook her trust in her chosen profession. "I did have doubts about continuing with science. It hurt my idea of science as a community that works together, builds upon each other's work and collaborates."
  • Weiye Loh on 02 Oct 10
     
    Research integrity: Sabotage! Postdoc Vipul Bhrigu destroyed the experiments of a colleague in order to get ahead.
Weiye Loh

Cooks Source, condescension and copyright law | Econsultancy - 0 views

econsultancy.com/...condecension-and-copyright-law

Digital Labor Copyright Plagiarism

shared by Weiye Loh on 05 Nov 10 - No Cached
  • It’s hard to make a living writing online. In general, those who write for the web are looked down on by their ‘in-print’ counterparts. Despite the fact that we often speak to larger and more relevant audiences, there’s still an attitude that web copy is somehow illegitimate, less professional.
  • A couple of years ago, LiveJournal user Monica Gaudio posted a short article on the history of the apple pie. Conclusion: It isn’t quite as all-American as you might think. Fairly innocuous stuff, until it recently resurfaced in Cook’s Source magazine. According to Monica , she only became aware of this when a friend asked her how she had managed to be published. Monica acted correctly, contacting the magazine under the assumption that a mix-up had occurred. The response showed an astonishing lack of knowledge about digital copyright, content value, and of course, the ever-looming spectre of social media fail and internet wrath. Apparently, the magazine had simply lifted the article directly from Monica’s site, publishing it in their print magazine, on their website and on the Cooks Source Facebook page. 
  • A few emails in and the editor finally asked what Monica wanted. Her list of demands was hardly excessive: A printed apology, and a donation of $130 to the Columbia school of Journalism, and she’d ignore the entire incident. Instead, the editor of Cook’s Source responded with a remarkable display of ignorance and condescension: Honestly Monica, the web is considered "public domain" and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me... ALWAYS for free! I’m unable to fathom where the notion that all web content is public domain came from for starters. If this is true, then it should be perfectly fine for me to reprint the entire contents of The Times on my blog each day.
  • Weiye Loh on 05 Nov 10
     
    Cooks Source, condescension and copyright law
Weiye Loh

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Core Questions in the Governance of Innovation - 0 views

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/...uestions-in-governance-of.html

Innovation Governance

shared by Weiye Loh on 04 Jan 11 - No Cached
  • Today's NYT has a couple interesting articles about technological innovations that we may not want, and that we may wish to regulate in some manner, formally or informally.  These technologies suggest some core questions that lie at the heart of the management of innovation.
  • The first article discusses Google' Goggles which is an application allows people to search the internet based on an image taken by a smartphone.  Google has decided not to allow this technology to include face recognition in its software, even though people have requested it.
  • Google could have put face recognition into the Goggles application; indeed, many users have asked for it. But Google decided against it because smartphones can be used to take pictures of individuals without their knowledge, and a face match could retrieve all kinds of personal information — name, occupation, address, workplace.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • “It was just too sensitive, and we didn’t want to go there,” said Eric E. Schmidt, the chief executive of Google. “You want to avoid enabling stalker behavior.”
  • The second article focuses on innovations in high frequency trading in financial markets, which bears some responsibility for the so-called "flash crash" of May 6th last year, in which the DJIA plunged more than 700 points in just minutes.
  • One debate has focused on whether some traders are firing off fake orders thousands of times a second to slow down exchanges and mislead others. Michael Durbin, who helped build high-frequency trading systems for companies like Citadel and is the author of the book “All About High-Frequency Trading,” says that most of the industry is legitimate and benefits investors. But, he says, the rules need to be strengthened to curb some disturbing practices.
  • This situation raises what I see to be core questions in the governance of innovation -- to what degree can innovation be shaped for achieving intended purposes? and, To what degree can the consequences of innovation be anticipated?
Weiye Loh

Rethinking the gene » Scienceline - 0 views

scienceline.org/...rethinking-the-gene

Genetic News Newspaper Latour Chance Probability

shared by Weiye Loh on 23 Feb 11 - No Cached
  • Currently, the public views genes primarily as self-contained packets of information that come from parents and are distinct from the environment. “The popular notion of the gene is an attractive idea—it’s so magical,” said Mark Blumberg, a developmental biologist at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. But it ignores the growing scientific understanding of how genes and local environments interplay, he said.
  • With the rise of molecular biology in the 1930s and genomics (the study of entire genomes) in the 1970s, scientists have developed a much more dynamic and complex picture of this interplay. The simplistic notion of the gene has been replaced with gene-environment interactions and developmental influences—nature and nurture as completely intertwined.
  • But the public hasn’t quite kept up. There remains a “huge chasm” between the way scientists understand genetics and the way the public understands it, said David Shenk, an author who has written extensively on genetics and intelligence.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • the public still thinks of genes as blueprints, providing precise instructions for each individual.
  • “The elegant simplicity of the idea is so powerful,” said Shenk. Unfortunately, it is also false. The blueprint metaphor is fundamentally deceptive, he said, and “leads people to believe that any difference they see can be tied back to specific genes.”
  • Instead, Shenk advocates the metaphor of a giant mixing board, in which genes are a multitude of knobs and switches that get turned on and off depending on various factors in their environment. Interaction is key, though it goes against how most people see genetics: the classic, but inaccurate, dichotomies of nature versus nurture, innate versus acquired and genes versus environment.
  • Belief in those dichotomies is hard to eliminate because people tend to understand genetics through the two separate “tracks” of genes and the environment, according to speech communication expert Celeste Condit from the University of Georgia in Athens. Condit suggests that, whenever possible, explanations of genetics—by scientists, authors, journalists, or doctors—should draw connections between the two tracks, effectively merging them into one. “We need to link up the gene and environment tracks,” she said, “so that [people] can’t think of one without thinking of the other.”
  • Part of what makes these concepts so difficult lies in the language of genetics itself. A recent study by Condit in the September issue of Clinical Genetics found that when people hear the word genetics, they primarily think of heredity, or the quality of being heritable (passed from one generation to the next). Unfortunately, the terms heredity and heritable are often confused with heritability, which has a very different meaning.
  • heritability has single-handedly muddled the discourse of genetics to such a degree that even experts can’t keep it straight, argues historian of science Evelyn Fox Keller at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in her recent book, The Mirage of a Space Between Nature and Nurture. Keller describes how heritability (in the technical literature) refers to how much of the variation in a trait is due to genetic explanation. But the term has seeped out into the general public and is, understandably, taken to mean heritable, or ability to be inherited. These concepts are fundamentally different, but often hard to grasp.
  • For example, let’s say that in a population with people of different heights, 60 percent of the variation in height is attributable to genes (as opposed to nutrition). The heritability of height is 60 percent. This does not mean, however, that 60 percent of an individual’s height comes from her genes, and 40 percent from what she ate growing up. Heritability refers to causes of variations (between people), not to causes of traits themselves (in each particular individual). The conflation of crucially different terms like traits and variations has wreaked havoc on the public understanding of genetics.
  • The stakes are high. Condit emphasizes how important a solid understanding of genetics is for making health decisions. Whether people see diabetes or lung cancer as determined by family history or responsive to changes in behavior depends greatly on how they understand genetics. Policy decisions about education, childcare, or the workplace are all informed by a proper understanding of the dynamic interplay of genes and the environment, and this means looking beyond the Mendelian lens of heredity. According to Shenk, everyone in the business of communicating these issues “needs to bend over backwards to help people understand.”
Weiye Loh

Digital's Great Teenage Misunderstanding | ClickZ - 0 views

www.clickz.com/...itals-teenage-misunderstanding

Digital Habits Teenager Data Internet Social Social Media

shared by Weiye Loh on 25 Feb 11 - No Cached
  • To quote, "most noteworthy was the shift in e-mail usage, particularly among young people. Total Web-based e-mail use was down eight percent last year, led by a walloping 59 percent drop among 12 to 17 year olds." I must reemphasize, the data is only for Web-based e-mail usage (think Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, Gmail, etc.) and that's an important distinction. A decline is a decline, but this certainly doesn't fully cover how e-mail is consumed in today's digital world.
  • Mark Zuckerberg offered this at the Facebook Messaging announcement: "High school kids don't use e-mail, they use SMS a lot. People want lighter weight things like SMS and IM to message each other."
  • There are two significant issues that must be added to the conversation though: Mobile's impact: The typical smartphone user spends almost half of her time on e-mail. This makes comScore's metrics marginal since it evaluated only Web-based e-mail usage. As e-Dialog CEO John Rizzi thoughtfully points out on a recent blog post: "In the 18-24 age group, unique visits increased 9%, while time spent decreased 10%. To me this points to the increasing use of mobile to triage inboxes on the go, and the desktop inbox being used to access specific e-mails and perform tasks like getting a code for a sale, or composing an e-mail reply that would be too onerous on a mobile phone. In fact, comScore found that 30% of respondents are viewing e-mail on their mobile phone, a 36% increase from 2009, and those using mobile e-mail daily increased 40% on average." Pew Internet recently evaluated how Internet users of different age groups spent their time online. Guess what? Even 90 to 100 percent of Millennials (ages 18-33) used e-mail. As you can see in the chart, below, e-mail was the top activity across all age groups.*
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Teenagers become adults: I may not win any scientific breakthrough awards for this statement, but people are missing the boat on this piece of the puzzle. What happens when a teenager becomes an adult in the workplace? Not only do they dress, speak, and act differently - they use different approaches to communicate, too. The first thing a new employee typical gets is…an e-mail address. And guess what? They use it, even if they have been reliant on social, IM, and texting for their primary communication channels. They will correspond for work via e-mail and opt in to e-mails from their favorite brands (including brands that they certainly did not like as a teenager). They likely will also "Like" their favorite companies on Facebook, follow them on Twitter, and opt in to SMS offers as well. They will also expect different value and information in each of these channels.
Valerie Oon

Ethics discussion based on new movie, "Surrogates" - 8 views

This movie upset me. I don't think the director developed the premise and plot to the potential it could have reached. Quite a shallow interpretation. But it does raise some intrigue. I'm a bit stu...

technology future empowerment destruction

started by joanne ye on 18 Oct 09 2 follow-ups, last by Valerie Oon on 28 Oct 09
Weiye Loh

Students don't need protection from ideas | Richard Reynolds | spiked - 0 views

www.spiked-online.com/...10430

Freedom of Speech Education

shared by Weiye Loh on 18 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Those students who argue for No Platform seem to be in two camps. The first suffer from some sort of Kim Jong Il-esque paranoia that the BNP or Islamofascists are at the gates of our university campuses just awaiting the opportunity to turn the nation’s students racist. This patronisingly assumes that students are an uncritically receptive bunch capable of being whipped into a crazed mob at the merest hint of BNP or Islamist rhetoric. 
  • The other camp of students in favour of No Platform, while less obviously hysterical than their fellow no-platformers, is in fact far more insidious. This group talks of creating a safe space to ensure that people do not feel intimidated or feel unable to make their voices heard. They point out that if ‘dangerous radicals’, in this case Hizb ut-Tahrir, are allowed to debate on the same platform, many people might not be able to ‘access’ the events. They’ll feel excluded, picked on. The types of student that need protection from such radical views range from the traditional, such as black students or women, right through to the absurd, such as socialist or ‘nervous’.
  • Yet I have seen black, women and even nervous students take the stand, as I have myself at the NUS annual conference, and say ‘I don’t want or need your “protection”’. And they have argued this for a good reason. The idea of ‘protection’ assumes that people have a right not to be offended, that they have a right not to hear students with views influenced by Hizb ut-Tahrir. But there is no right not to be offended. Why should there be? These are students after all; they are at university to experience new and often offensive ideas.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Students are supposed to be engaging with the big ideas in society. It might be how to make a nuclear bomb in physics, or it might be the rationale for using the nuclear bomb against Japan in history. If university is not about these difficult and challenging ideas, then it really is nothing more than a finishing school to equip us with the correct skills for the workplace. If free education, an issue close to the heart of many students, is about anything, it should be about the freedom to explore ideas. The truth is that the greatest impediment to getting a free education is not the fees but the NUS’s policies which effectively keep students wrapped in cotton wool.
1 - 11 of 11
Showing 20▼ items per page