Read on Twitter
Here& #39;s a fun thing to do in your spare time: find old articles claiming & #39;university students demand& #39; removal of philosophers from syllabi & #39;because they are white& #39; and compare the content of the article to what they said. Here& #39;s one from the Telegraph in 2017
The first claim is that the student union is & #39;demanding that figures such as Plato, Descartes and Immanuel Kant should be largely dropped from the curriculum& #39;. 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& #39;t on them in the first place. https://web.archive.org/web/20160809003930/https://www.soas.ac.uk/religions-and-philosophies/programmes/">https://web.archive.org/web/20160...
A bit difficult to drop figures from syllabi if they aren& #39;t on them in the first place. https://web.archive.org/web/20160809003930/https://www.soas.ac.uk/religions-and-philosophies/programmes/">https://web.archive.org/web/20160...
Bit of a stretch to say the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) is dedicating their resources to Kant and Descartes, I& #39;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...
& #39;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& #39;)& #39;.
This compelling informal argument was left out of the Telegraph article.
https://soasunion.org/pageassets/education/educationalpriorities/Educational-priorities-2016-17(3).pdf">https://soasunion.org/pageasset...
This compelling informal argument was left out of the Telegraph article.
https://soasunion.org/pageassets/education/educationalpriorities/Educational-priorities-2016-17(3).pdf">https://soasunion.org/pageasset...
The eleventh paragraph is the most egregious misrepresentation, however. Compare this highlighted section...
... to this section from the SOAS SU EP manifesto.
& #39;If white philosophers are required& #39; is transformed into & #39;white philosophers should be studied only if required& #39;.
The introduction of & #39;only& #39; and & #39;should& #39; makes the Telegraph& #39;s attributed claim *far* stronger than SOAS SU& #39;s.
& #39;If white philosophers are required& #39; is transformed into & #39;white philosophers should be studied only if required& #39;.
The introduction of & #39;only& #39; and & #39;should& #39; makes the Telegraph& #39;s attributed claim *far* stronger than SOAS SU& #39;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& #39;s claim about Kant is simply at odds with current work in philosophy. There& #39;s a cottage industry of papers dedicated to examining Kant& #39;s racism affecting his philosophical work. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/05568641.2016.1199170?journalCode=rppa20">https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...
And it& #39;s difficult to reconcile Sir Sheldon& #39;s criticism (& #39;We need to understand the world as it was and not to rewrite history as some might like it to have been& #39; ) as remotely relevant when SOAS SU seek to & #39;acknowledg[e] the colonial [i.e. historical] context& #39;.
![And it& #39;s difficult to reconcile Sir Sheldon& #39;s criticism (& #39;We need to understand the world as it was and not to rewrite history as some might like it to have been& #39; ) as remotely relevant when SOAS SU seek to & #39;acknowledg[e] the colonial [i.e. historical] context& #39;.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ega1Jw8XkAAU6U6.jpg "And it& #39;s difficult to reconcile Sir Sheldon& #39;s criticism (& #39;We need to understand the world as it was and not to rewrite history as some might like it to have been& #39; ) as remotely relevant when SOAS SU seek to & #39;acknowledg[e] the colonial [i.e. historical] context& #39;.")
But what& #39;s most revealing in the Telegraph article is what& #39;s absent: the other key points of SOAS SU in 2016/17 are missing.
There& #39;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& #39;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& #39;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& #39;s no article at the Telegraph on SOAS SU& #39;s call for these policies.
And there& #39;s no mention in the article of calls for more bursaries and grants for working-class students, scrapping fee hikes, or improvement to students& #39; mental health at SOAS--also important issues that deserved their own column.
Instead, here& #39;s what the Telegraph has to say about SOAS.
I& #39;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& #39;m willing to place a significant bet that there& #39;s a specific reason why stories about SOAS at the Telegraph only talk about a manufactured & #39;culture war& #39;.
Addendum: but then again, it& #39;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
