October 6, 2021 - 11:00am
None of my peers at the University of St Andrews were surprised to see the re-emergence of a compulsory “Diversity Training” module this year.
Last year, we had to complete mandatory “Consent Training” and “Training in Environmental Sustainability Action” modules to matriculate as students. We were also tasked with a “Student Diversity Online Training” module — though it was taken down following complaints from some students that it was, among other things, “bad”, “half assed” and “slightly not okay”.
Although the failure of this first attempt at a diversity module proved that ideas about what equality and diversity are not universal, there remained a strong desire among the student body for a replacement. This is likely because we have the largest proportion of American students of any British university. Through them, and intensified by social media, American-style campus movements such as Black Lives Matter appear in the form of an enthusiastic and energetic activism, much of which occurs online.
The summer of 2020 also saw the creation of of “St Andrews Survivors“, an Instagram page that revealed hundreds of harrowing stories of sexual harassment and abuse. In response, the University attempted to address the issue of sexual harassment on campus, of which the introduction of a compulsory module on consent played a small part.
Ultimately though, these compulsory modules do not amount to anything except a token effort to address a problem whose solution is far more complicated than an eighteen-question quiz.
This is especially the case for the “Diversity Training” module, which was patronisingly easy to complete. The yes/no format could be finished within five minutes, without the need for the reams of attached information. This was also true of the “Consent Training” module.
What this all amounted to, then, was an entirely pointless exercise. It isn’t right that at The Times’s top-ranked UK university pupils should be expected to have to agree with the statement ‘‘Acknowledging your personal guilt is a useful start point in overcoming unconscious bias” in order to become a student. Such issues are never binary and the time would be better spent discussing the issue, rather than taking a test on it.
When I asked the University of St Andrews if students could opt out of the module, a spokesperson responded:
But this response did not actually answer my question: could students opt out if they wanted? To which the spokesperson later responded:
This seems like a roundabout way of saying that the module is, in fact, mandatory. I don’t want to suggest that the students who pushed for such modules are bad-intentioned, but they are misguided in their efforts. I can’t admit to knowing the solutions to questions of sexual abuse or whether St Andrews should or shouldn’t be more diverse, but it certainly isn’t in a lazily prescriptive module which represents its tenets as gospel.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThere’s very little to add to that, except to applaud the writer for calling out the sheer inhumanity of those seeking to exploit this horrendous crime.
I note that you choose not to call out the “sheer inhumanity” of the people who carried out this crime.
Because you don’t have to.
What a seemingly gormless remark Sham Brain!
I assume that was one of your usual plonking attempts at provocation.
And you responded to it.
People have no shame.
Certainly, some trans rights activists have no shame.
It’s a very good article, except for the misgendering of Brianna, who was a boy and should therefore be referred to using male pronouns.
Activists will do what activists do. They are never interested in solutions, only the perpetuation of whatever problem they represent. Because the perpetuation gives them relevance, a platform, and on occasion, a livelihood. The facts never matter.
Don’t forget funding and jobs.
Indeed. Think Equity & Inclusion Consultants, Diversity Champions, Sensitivity Readers … nothing lets you know your ideology is on the right lines more than the sweet sound of ker-ching.
The trans ideologues are clearly upset by the fact that all the reports emerging from the case are indicative that the victim was not murdered because of “transphobia”.
It would have been just so incredibly helpful to them if “transphobia” was behind it. They must be cursing the killers for only be deranged, rather than to have been found to have been obsessively following JK Rowling, Graham Linehan, and other “transphobes” on social media.
With the proverbial egg on their faces, predictably some have chosen to double down. India Willoughby’s foolish post on X should ensure that he will be very busy with our learned friends in 2024.
You’re right. Legal action is the only thing that will make irresponsible commentators think twice.
*Mr Indius Willoughby’s foolish post on X should ensure that he will be very busy with our learned friends in 2024.
‘India Willoughby’s foolish post on X’
To be fair, that’s very much Willoughby’s USP.
I agree with the author – but who doesn’t do this nowadays. A woman is killed – a vanishingly rare event in the U.K.- and it’s all night politicised vigils by people who never knew her. And the pretence follows that this is somehow reflective of society in general. A black man is killed by the police, and no one waits for justice to take its course – instead the streets erupt and a petty criminal gets his face all over the media.
It’s hard not to feel that activists welcome these events like a gift from the gods. It’s awful, but it’s not limited to trans activists.
Around 100 women a year are killed by men in the UK, most by current or ex-partners.
I personally wouldn’t call this “vanishingly rare.”
You have to compare it with the overall female population of the U.K. Assuming your figure to be correct I make that 1 in 350,000.
Its hard to wrap your head around those numbers, but if you imagine the canary wharf tower representing the number of women in the U.K. (like a giant bar chart) then the number killed per year would be represented by a mark just over 1/2mm from the bottom. You’d need good eyesight to see it. That is vanishingly rare.
We will never have a society in which murder never occurs. But we are remarkably close.
“You have to compare it with the overall female population of the U.K. Assuming your figure to be correct I make that 1 in 350,000.”
Is 1 in 350,000 about the “right” level of murder of UK women in your estimation, then?
Don’t be silly.
You’re just being silly. We’d all rather there were no murders at all. Men or women. That’s unlikely ever to be the case sadly. How about a grown up reply?
Sure. Here’s two.
1. Something that happens twice a week isn’t “vanishingly rare”
2. You can’t decide how much of a concern something is just by statistically frequency. Severity matters also.
Did you actually read my post. It depends on the population size. If a bird is only sighted twice a week in the whole world, it would be considered rare. If it was sighted twice a week in the average garden it would not.
More to the point – if you look at my original post, the point I am making is that activists (not just trans activists) use people’s statistical illiteracy to make political hay. Scaring people to death for no reason in the process.
“Interesting” selection of the stats there.
Around 200 women are killed in the UK per year. Who kills the rest of them? Or are they not important to you?
“Around 200 women are killed in the UK per year. Who kills the rest of them? Or are they not important to you?”
A small number – 5 to 10% – killed by other women and the rest will be unknown therefore recorded as “No known suspect”.
Given that the vast majority of women’s murders where there is a primary suspect recorded the killer is male, its reasonable to speculate that most of those No Known Suspect cases are also.
We should be more concerned about the male suicide rate, which for the UK is approaching 100 deaths per week.
100 women per year is also a small fraction of the 1463 women in England and Wales who commit suicide each year.
When resources are limited it’s the big problems that should be addressed first.
It’s not a competition.
Let’s be concerned about both male violence towards women and male suicide.
It’s entirely feasible they share some root causes anyway.
No – but if it were 2 men committing suicide a week it wouldn’t even be news. And the response would be – oh, is that all. Even when it’s 50 times that it’s not really news.
Curious to know what you think these might be?
Despair would cover both.
Interesting idea. Do you think men kill women out of despair?
Thanks for that bit of humanity. We have a long way to go before we really begin to understand each other.
That’s rich.
Women have spent the last few decades making everything a competition between men and women.
At the end of the day, if you commit suicide that’s on you. Murder is different.
But it must be of interest to society to discover what causes people to commit suicide.
A woman?
Brianna was killed because wrong place wrong time. The unhinged gender window lickers can’t make hay out of that fact though – so they will blame transphobia, capitalism,white people/climate change etc…
We’ll blame the likes of you.
You forgot patriarchy
And colonialism.
Ah, the “thoughts and prayers” approach adopted by US Republicans when there is yet another mass shooting – and just about as nauseous.
Anti trans radicals should be delighted – you hate trans kids and now you got one of them killed. Mission accomplished.
Hi
I often look at the comments section after reading a piece. I like to hear different opinions. Many of those opinions I disagree with of course. But I still find it hard to believe how quickly people can move from expressing their own opinion to utter rudeness and ridicule of another persons posting. It seems to get worse and worse as time goes on. Why? Can someone explain (without any further rudeness or aggression aimed at me. But I’m sure there will be) why there are these constant ‘emotional’ outbursts rather than any calm objective discussion of the subject being discussed? Surely you can just say you disagree and then explain why rather than resorting to insults? Or have those days finally gone now forever now we can all hide who we are on the internet?
I am putting my hard hat now and waiting….
Good question. I’m perhaps guilty of it sometimes – and it’s just pure frustration. But mostly it’s black and white thinking, side taking and a refusal to entertain an opposing view even long enough to refute it.
The trans issue brings out the worst in people. If you even try to get people to see the trans side – even partly, and even for a moment – you’ll be attacked. Sometimes unpleasantly.
Certain groups are worse than others for their inability to think. I won’t say who they are, you’ll find out for yourself soon enough.
Having said that there are some commenters I really respect, including some I cross swords with on a regular basis. I suspect I would like them in person.
Anyway your attitude sounds great. Try and stick with it and don’t get too frustrated when some people seem unwilling to listen.
If you are curious, google search for “emotional reasoning” – it explains a lot. People often mistake the strength of their feeling for proof that they are right – and that those who disagree are stupid or evil.
Of course this has been true forever. But, just a few decades ago very few people would have gotten so hateful so fast. Simple common decency; the stuff we learned in kindergarten.