Read on Twitter
Here's a fun thing to do in your spare time: find old articles claiming 'university students demand' removal of philosophers from syllabi 'because they are white' and compare the content of the article to what they said. Here's one from the Telegraph in 2017
The first claim is that the student union is 'demanding that figures such as Plato, Descartes and Immanuel Kant should be largely dropped from the curriculum'. However...
... if we look at the degrees granted in the Department of Religions and Philosophies at SOAS in 2016/2017, no degree programmes were dedicated to Western philosophy.
A bit difficult to drop figures from syllabi if they aren't on them in the first place. https://web.archive.org/web/20160809003930/https://www.soas.ac.uk/religions-and-philosophies/programmes/
A bit difficult to drop figures from syllabi if they aren't on them in the first place. https://web.archive.org/web/20160809003930/https://www.soas.ac.uk/religions-and-philosophies/programmes/
Bit of a stretch to say the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) is dedicating their resources to Kant and Descartes, I'd say. Checking that took at most a minute using some elementary research skills. Now on to the next claim.
The next paragraph leaves out a pertinent section from the SOAS Student Union Educational Priorities 2016-2017 manifesto. Want to guess what it is? Well...
'SOAS’s focus is on Asia and Africa and therefore the foundations of its theories should be presented by Asian or African philosophers (or the diaspora')'.
This compelling informal argument was left out of the Telegraph article.
https://soasunion.org/pageassets/education/educationalpriorities/Educational-priorities-2016-17(3).pdf
This compelling informal argument was left out of the Telegraph article.
https://soasunion.org/pageassets/education/educationalpriorities/Educational-priorities-2016-17(3).pdf
The eleventh paragraph is the most egregious misrepresentation, however. Compare this highlighted section...
... to this section from the SOAS SU EP manifesto.
'If white philosophers are required' is transformed into 'white philosophers should be studied only if required'.
The introduction of 'only' and 'should' makes the Telegraph's attributed claim *far* stronger than SOAS SU's.
'If white philosophers are required' is transformed into 'white philosophers should be studied only if required'.
The introduction of 'only' and 'should' makes the Telegraph's attributed claim *far* stronger than SOAS SU's.
We then are introduced to three individuals: Roger Scruton, Anthony Sheldon, and Erica Hunter, as authorities on the subject, and all dismiss SOAS SU.
Their reasoning is also spurious and historically illiterate, e.g. Scruton's claim about Kant is simply at odds with current work in philosophy. There's a cottage industry of papers dedicated to examining Kant's racism affecting his philosophical work. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/05568641.2016.1199170?journalCode=rppa20
And it's difficult to reconcile Sir Sheldon's criticism ('We need to understand the world as it was and not to rewrite history as some might like it to have been' ) as remotely relevant when SOAS SU seek to 'acknowledg[e] the colonial [i.e. historical] context'.
![And it's difficult to reconcile Sir Sheldon's criticism ('We need to understand the world as it was and not to rewrite history as some might like it to have been' ) as remotely relevant when SOAS SU seek to 'acknowledg[e] the colonial [i.e. historical] context'.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ega1Jw8XkAAU6U6.jpg "And it's difficult to reconcile Sir Sheldon's criticism ('We need to understand the world as it was and not to rewrite history as some might like it to have been' ) as remotely relevant when SOAS SU seek to 'acknowledg[e] the colonial [i.e. historical] context'.")
But what's most revealing in the Telegraph article is what's absent: the other key points of SOAS SU in 2016/17 are missing.
There's no mention of a call to widen the scope of scholarships for refugees. A whole article could be published on this, one that is factually accurate.
There's no mention of a call to widen the scope of scholarships for refugees. A whole article could be published on this, one that is factually accurate.
There's no mention in the Telegraph article of calls to make education more accessible or tackle the attainment gap for working-class students and students of colour at SOAS. Again, there's no article at the Telegraph on SOAS SU's call for these policies.
And there's no mention in the article of calls for more bursaries and grants for working-class students, scrapping fee hikes, or improvement to students' mental health at SOAS--also important issues that deserved their own column.
Instead, here's what the Telegraph has to say about SOAS.
I'm willing to place a significant bet that similar cursory research into these articles would find similar decisions to frame stories with right-wing voices given an uncritical ear and other significant errors in reporting that misrepresent the facts.
And I'm willing to place a significant bet that there's a specific reason why stories about SOAS at the Telegraph only talk about a manufactured 'culture war'.
Addendum: but then again, it's not surprising that the Telegraph piece is framed in this way and lacking key context. The Telegraph author did no original reporting, since all the quotes were pulled directly from a Daily Mail article & the structures of the articles are identical
love too get reply guys
