Ah, a visiting fellowship

Cambridge University has rescinded its offer of a visiting fellowship to controversial academic Jordan Peterson, who refuses to refer to transgender people by their chosen pronouns, after outcry from faculty and students.

This is like a visiting professorship but perhaps a tad grander? Or less so?

Come give a couple of lectures, have dinner, goodbye sorta thing? Like the LSE gave Naomi Klein?

23 comments on “Ah, a visiting fellowship

  1. He, of course, doesn’t refuse to refer to trans people by their preferred pronouns. That would be rude and he’s a Canadian.

    He objects to it being a criminal offence not to do so. This stark difference is clearly too obscure for the Stepford students and their enablers in the MSM.

  2. If they’re going to cave, why invite him in the first place? It’s not as if the reaction wasn’t entirely predictable.

  3. Also everyone said he was exaggerating about the impact of the law, but as the story that Tim is currently posting about in parallel (Twitter ‘transphobic’ hate-crime being investigated by police) shows, there is no limit to the crazy these people want to foist on us.

    This is Cambridge’s loss, you are supposed to go to university to learn things you don’t know from people who know more than you. If the university is now being ‘run’ by the students, where are they going?

    And the Telegraph has completely lost it as far as I can see. Citing the ‘enforced monogamy’ thing without qualification or explanation. As Peterson says somewhere else: all journalists do for research these days is read other journalists’ articles.

  4. @SE – beat me to it. It’s the compulsion by the state to use certain language, that he’s against.

    A couple of years ago, that sap Justin Trudeau chastised (what I believe to be) a supporter in public – stopped her speaking – when she used the work ‘mankind’. He told her ‘…we no longer use that word, we say peoplekind’. She immediately apologised and used the ‘state-approved’ (well, sorta) word she was told to.

  5. The pros and cons of breast cancer screening are explained quite well in this More or Less programme. (First section lasts about 7mins). Its appears the jury is starting to find the risks may be greater than the benefits on average.

    For those who like to get in to the weeds the program refers to a Cochrane review of breast cancer screening:

    Authors’ conclusions:
    If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings. To help ensure that the women are fully informed before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on http://www.cochrane.dk. Because of substantial advances in treatment and greater breast cancer awareness since the trials were carried out, it is likely that the absolute effect of screening today is smaller than in the trials. Recent observational studies show more overdiagnosis than in the trials and very little or no reduction in the incidence of advanced cancers with screening.

    I’ve discussed PSA tests with my GP and other doctors a few times and they all give the same message about unreliability and the effects of a biopsy. I have a friend who pays for a private PSA test every 3 months so that he can look for trends. He hasn’t shown me the data but did comment once that it does to have high variability.

  6. Checks correct thread ….

    JP responds. Its a bit long and he seems a bit pissed off:

    ….

    Now the Divinity school has decided that signaling their solidarity with the diversity-inclusivity-equity mob trumps that opportunity–or so I presume. You see, I don’t yet know, because (and this is particularly appalling) I was not formally notified of this decision by any representative of the Divinity school. I heard about the rescinded offer through the grapevine, via a colleague and friend, and gathered what I could about the reasons from social media and press coverage (assuming that CUSU has at least something to do with it).

    I would also like to point out something else. As I already noted, the Divinity Faculty (@CamDivinity) tweeted their decision to rescind, consciously making this a public issue. This is inexcusable, in my estimation, given (1) that they did not equally publicize the initial agreement/invitation (which has to be considered an event of equal import) and (2) that they implied that I came cap-in-hand to the school for the fellowship. This is precisely the kind of half-truth particularly characteristic of those who deeply practice to deceive, as the fellowship offer was a consequence of mutual discussion between those who invited me to Cambridge in July and my subsequent formal request, and not something I had dreamed up on my own.

    I think the Faculty of Divinity made a serious error of judgement in rescinding their offer to me (and I’m speaking about those unnamed persons who made that specific decision). I think they handled publicizing the rescindment in a manner that could hardly have been more narcissistic, self-congratulatory and devious.

    I believe that the parties in question don’t give a damn about the perilous decline of Christianity, and I presume in any case that they regard that faith, in their propaganda-addled souls, as the ultimate manifestation of the oppressive Western patriarchy, despite their hypothetical allegiance to their own discipline.

    I think that it is no bloody wonder that the faith is declining (and with it, the values of the West, as it fragments) with cowards and mountebanks of the sort who manifested themselves today at the helm.

    I wish them the continued decline in relevance over the next few decades that they deeply and profoundly and diligently work toward and deserve.

    P.S. I also find it interesting and deeply revealing that I know the names of the people who invited me, both informally and formally, but the names of the people who have disinvited me remain shrouded in exactly the kind of secrecy that might be expected from hidden, conspiratorial, authoritarian and cowardly bureaucrats. How many were there? No one knows. By what process did they come to the decision (since there were obviously people who wanted me there)? No one knows. On what grounds was the decision made? That has not been revealed. What role was played by pressure from, for example, the CUSU? That’s apparently no one’s business. It is on such ground that tyranny does not so much grow as positively thrive.

  7. Of course he’s pissed off, being publicly disavowed by Cambridge University without being privately informed beforehand is not a great experience.

    That and he was genuinely looking forward to it.

  8. Close this Uni entirely. Expel all the trash. The scum of the left must begin to receive consequences for their evil.

    In future the young snot will think twice before opening their fetid Marxian gobs.

  9. I am truly disgusted by my alma mater.
    I promise I shall write with a protest (I am sure that it will be ignored but noted-possibly to be used against me later).
    I would do more if others joined me.

    I don’t like the C21 very much.

  10. Look at the speed a conservative newspaper can transform into a left wing one, and note the utter impossibility of one travelling in the other direction. Imagine the Guardian doing it, for example. To even suggest it is laughable.

    The media class as a whole is riddled with the Left, and woke Left to boot, a complete contrast to the general public. It is a serious problem.

  11. Faculty of Divinity? I wonder what God would say?

    Oh.

    Genesis 5:2:

    ” Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”

    Matthew 19:4:

    ” And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, “

  12. “This is like a visiting professorship but perhaps a tad grander? Or less so?”

    Less so (but Cambridge, so visiting fellow there grander than visiting prof at some ex-poly).

  13. ‘outcry from faculty and students’

    Three or four people.

    Whom the Telegraph badgered for a comment.

  14. Three or four people.

    Whom the Telegraph badgered for a comment.

    Trawled Twitter for loons raging against it, found a few who were students there, a de facto veto. Whoever has the largest megaphone runs Cambridge University now.

  15. “Controversial” = saying that Christianity has value, being sceptical of gendertrending, having a predominantly white, male fan club

    Not controversial = promoting feminist and racialist “white supremacy” conspiracy theories, pretending Roman Britain looked like the cast of DESMOND’S, unironically supporting nightmare regimes that killed hundreds of millions of people

  16. “This is like a visiting professorship but perhaps a tad grander? Or less so?” No idea: I’ve never heard of the University offering fellowships. I have, however, heard of people who run universities being spineless twerps.

    I have, at different times, been a Visiting Professor and a Visiting Fellow. The latter was probably higher prestige but that was specific to the particular Fellowship and the particular Professorship. I don’t think a generalisation would work. But maybe it would in the US where they tend to be particularly obsessed with status, titles, hierarchy, credentials, and all the rest of it. (And, oddly, they seem to assume that they way they use words must be the same way those words are used in furrin’ universities.)

  17. Talking of which, what sort of arsehole uses “faculty” to refer to the academic staff of the University of Cambridge?

  18. Close this Uni entirely. Expel all the trash. The scum of the left must begin to receive consequences for their evil. In future the young snot will think twice before opening their fetid Marxian gobs.

    Harsh but true. The only solution to the cultural Marxist “Long march through the institutions” is to utterly obliterate them. Mere reform or purges of the worst offenders is no longer enough (because the are lying Marxist scum, obviously)

    The full price must be paid for contaminating these formerly great institutions with Marxist shite.

  19. @dearieme
    Um, not an a***hole. Faculty is the correct term for (some) “departments” at Cambridge (and Oxofrd?).
    Although there is DPMMS and DAMTP for maths-I suspect the combined departments might be the Faculty of Maths (but not sure.

  20. dearieme
    (And, oddly, they seem to assume that they way they use words must be the same way those words are used in furrin’ universities.)

    The most ridiculous and laughable use of a title in the US is “esquire” for a female lawyer. Unless they foresaw the gender and trannie wars in which we’re now embedded.

  21. ‘Um, not an a***hole. Faculty is the correct term for (some) “departments” at Cambridge (and Oxofrd?).’

    Oh yes, an arsehole. He or she didn’t use “faculty” to mean Faculty, but to mean academic staff.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.