What is a university for?

 There is a "discussion" going on at present between the classicist and academic Mary Beard and a Charlotte Gill about the way universities function. 

Dame Mary held a professorship in her own right at Newnham (Cambridge University). She spent many years teaching there. She was teaching in London (King's?) when I was a student in another part of the university. I managed to get to a lecture by her, a friend took me. I remember it well enough to think I would very much like to have been taught by her. She welcomed discussion.

I am not sure what Charlotte Gill's qualifications are. She is not the Canadian writer but she does write about what she calls "woke waste" - funding for woke projects. 

The "discussion" or argument seems to revolve around whether universities are involved in teaching and questioning ideas or whether they are places where you regurgitate the "correct" ideas.  The "what is a university for" argument. Trying to debate this at all on "X" let alone properly is almost impossible.

It is a topic I have commented on before and will no doubt comment on again. I had a discussion about it with the mature age student who lives across the dividing footpath where I now live. He has strong opinions about the way he is expected to abide by the ideas being put in front of him. He has been marked down for arguing against them. This is not "my lecturer/tutor doesn't like me and I am only getting a pass grade" but something he has been told he cannot afford to do. He is passing but he is not getting the grade he should be getting. He is getting distinctions but not high distinctions.  He is studying "counselling".  He refuses to accept there is only one correct answer to the questions he is being required to answer in assignments. His hopes of doing a masters have been cut to zero. There is no room for someone who does not follow the correct ideology in counselling. 

The late Senior Cat used to tell the story of how one of his lecturers slashed a line through an entire page of a student's work saying, "X (a critic) will not do. I won't have him mentioned."  How do you write a reasoned argument if you are not free to refer to and use all the resources you have at your disposal?

I have seen this happen more than once. I was a victim of it when I was doing my teacher training. There were "guidelines" and we were expected to follow them. There was only one way to write a lesson plan and we had to stick to that lesson plan. As a teacher if a child asked a good thoughtful question the rest of us would be off that plan and I would be getting them to argue the point being made. It meant we sometimes had to make up work to cover all that needed to be covered but the only complaints came from one or two lazy ones.

At tertiary level there should be room for argument. If a student raises an issue in a way which suggests they do not understand then they need one sort of help. If they raise an issue because they have done their "homework" and they are questioning something then they need to be encouraged. They don't need to be told "this is what you have to say even if if it not what you think".

My doctoral thesis turned an idea in psychology around another way. It was not what I set out to do. It just happened as I was searching for answers to the problem I had set myself. It came as a surprise to me, to my supervisor and everyone else. Even now I realise I was incredibly fortunate that I did not fail because the external examiner, a big name in the field, found his own work being questioned. It was one of those times when things could have gone either way. At my viva he really pushed me hard. The other two examiners barely asked a question. I know they were worried and I was very, very frightened. At the end of it though he told me, "I don't like it but I have to accept we need to change our thinking here." The data was there.  

The result might have been very different if my thesis had been in the area of "gender studies" or "indigenous studies" or one of the other current woke ideas. It will also take a brave student to argue against the meaning given to a particular word when studying one of the indigenous languages of this country, or suggesting that nuclear power might still be something that needs consideration. Try saying indigenous children should be taught in English from the start and you would lose any chance of a job working with them, perhaps of working with children at all.  The list of topics that may not be argued is long.

I suspect both Dame Mary and M/s Gill still have much to say to one another. I also believe it is both the university you attend and the course(s) you do there which will inform you of whether you are permitted to argue other ideas. Here they are not always welcome, particularly in woke areas or if their purpose is to train you for employment or both. 

Myself? I think universities are there, or should be there, for the exchange of ideas and the development of them. It won't happen if you have to agree in order to pass.  

Could we have some honesty please!

The mass shooting in British Columbia is an appalling event. In a small town (2,500 pop.) it will hit even harder than the mass shootings which have occurred in other places. Any mass shooting is horrendous. It is to be condemned.  It is wrong.

It is also wrong to pretend it is something it is not. In this case I heard the news of "an active shooter" being reported as, "The police are saying it is a woman." 

I wondered about that at the time. There were a number of reasons for this. Women who murder rarely do so using a gun as a weapon of choice. Women who murder often do it to protect their young. Going into a school and randomly shooting seemed highly unlikely. This was coming from the police in the town and a usually reliable news source.

The international news service repeated the story. They used the word "woman".

This morning there was a picture of the person alleged to have done the shooting. That person is said to be eighteen years of age. That person had a very obvious need to shave - or grow a beard. Perhaps there is a legal requirement to say "female" but I suspect the vast majority of people will look at the photograph and say, "But that's a man." Would it be better to say, "A person who identified as female." Possibly. Would it be more accurate?

A neighbour, out washing his car, told me, "That's not a woman. It reminds me of all those ridiculous claims about being indigenous when you have blue eyes and fair hair like that so-called professor of indigenous agriculture." Would it be better to say, "A person who identifies as being indigenous"? Possibly. Would it be more accurate?

Would it help people understand the event? In the tiny town where it happened I am sure the reasons for the shootings are being discussed and discussed at length. There will be an investigation and many people will wonder why they or others "missed the signs" but trying to suggest that the answer is simply, "They were "transgender" or "that person was a woman" " is not the answer. It should not be reported in that way. 

Our media has been making much of the visit of the Israeli President. Those who did not want the visit to occur have had most of the coverage, of course they have. If however we rely entirely on what they have to say and what the media has said then we only have part of the story. As I pointed out yesterday these people often deliberately break the law. It makes good news footage. Police bashing can be talked about and that is always considered useful news. It has taken the columnists, not seen or heard by the majority, to point out that at least some of what is being said is completely incorrect.

On a number of occasions I have been interviewed and I have not enjoyed it. Why? Because so often what I have said has been twisted to suit the agenda of the interviewer. When it is further reduced to fit the time or space available the message can get completely lost.  Is this dangerous? It can be. Is it dishonest? Yes. 

Before we sympathise with the protestors

perhaps we should ask ourselves some questions. The first of these would have to be, "Were they breaking the law?"

The answer to that is yes. They had permission to be peaceful in one place and not cause a disruption - nothing more and nothing less.  They had tried to get that overturned and they failed. Instead of abiding by the decision they went ahead with their own plans. They chose to break the law.

We might not like that law. We may say it goes against the long held belief we have a "right" to "free speech". It makes no difference. A law has been passed in parliament and the protestors chose to challenge it. There were good reasons for putting the law there in the first place. We may not like that either but, like the laws about speeding or paying tax, it was put there for a reason.  If we want to change it then we do so by writing to our MPs and getting a change at the ballot box if necessary. Do we want to support those who choose to break the law and potentially harm others?

Then there is the question. Do we know what the protestors are protesting about? No, don't just tell me "they are protesting against the war in Gaza", Why are they protesting about that particular war? What makes it so special that they have been out there for twenty-seven months? Asked what they are protesting about and they will give you a simplistic answer. If a problem is solved to their liking then they simply find another way to state it or another problem, another grievance.

Have we asked, "Where is the money coming from?" It costs money to protest and keep on protesting, to keep on rallying supporters of the cause. There is money behind these protests. Who is providing it, why and what do they want in return? It also costs the taxpayer in the policing of protests, even the most peaceful of protests. It also costs the businesses around the areas where the protests take place. Are they open. Is their trade being diminished?  Do the protestors believe that the $27m or more (and I am told this is a conservative estimate) spent on policing the protests in just one city is justified? What about all the services it could provide or how it could be used to educate people about their grievances?

Do we know what it is the protestors hope to achieve by protesting? Do they want to influence government policy? Is it in keeping with the policies of the day or is it a view held by a minority? Is failing to implement their demands genuinely harming our national fabric or our international reputation?

If they are protesting against a war in Gaza then why are not also protesting against something like the war in Ukraine, the war in Sudan or the regime in Iran? How do those conflicts differ so much they are apparently not worthy of protest? What about the Uighur in China, the restrictions the Taliban are placing on women and girls in Afghanistan? Why are they not shouting about the kidnapping of students in Nigeria?   Do they want women, including those protesting, to live under Sharia law?

And if they are arrested for violence, for assault (of each other as well as the police) or for blocking a public road or footpath and hindering the passage of others then what do we believe should happen to them? Do we release them without charge when tempers have cooled? Do we require them to appear in court? If so do we scold them, fine them, record a conviction or fail to record one? Do we keep a record of who they are so that it can be used against them later if they breach the law again? Does the right of some of them to pray five times a day include hindering the passage of others even in contravention of their own religious guidelines?Are they hoping we will make martyrs of them so they can expand their grievances and perhaps take the matter even higher into the legal system? How will all this be paid for?

There is no legislated right to protest in this country but we do enjoy the freedom to do it. I enjoy that freedom when I write this. It does not give me the right to harm others or restrict their freedoms and indeed rights. There is more than one way to protest. I still believe the most effective is to write an actual letter to someone who is able to make a difference because they have the authority to do that or belong to an elected group which has the authority. That will often mean a member of parliament. There are ways to write such letters - if you want them to be read and acted on.

Yes, I know I have not given you the answers. There are legal and moral questions here. We need to ask questions.  

 

  

 

  

We do not have a STEM problem

in this country. We have a language problem, an arts problem, a creativity problem.

The "person of the year" is an astronaut and, dare I even say this, a female astronaut at that. She is the first person to be an astronaut under the flag of this country. (Yes, you can forget Andy Thomas apparently - he trained with the Americans.) 

Now this "person of the year" is speaking up about the need for people to do STEM - science, technology, engineering and mathematics.  This is what is expected of her, no it is doubt one of the reasons she was chosen for the role.  I have no arguments with that. We need scientists and mathematicians and the technicians and engineers and other professionals which go with all the employment in those areas.

The problem is that none of this can happen without language and nothing will develop without creativity. The would be scientist, mathematician, engineer or technician needs to be able to read and read well. It is not sufficient to be able to read the instructions on the box and put the widget together. The widget has to be put together and used. If we want that person to build a better widget then they need to know how the widget works and why it was made that way. They need to know this before they can use processes like logic and creativity to improve the performance of the widget. It might appear to be as if it is all grounded in science and maths and engineering but in reality it is not. That comes next. It begins because someone has the language and the capability to apply language to the problem.

I said this recently on a mathematical project page set up by an Oxford mathematician. I was howled down by people who tried to tell me that mathematics was more important than language. They appeared to completely ignore the fact they were using language to argue their case. They ignored the fact that unless they understood words like "one" and "two", "multiply", "integer", "division" and more they could not even begin to find a square root or calculate a Chi square. The Oxford mathematician agreed with me but it left me feeling alarmed by how little importance some people place on the ability to use language or how essential it is in order to participate in the world. 

A speech pathologist once said to me she was always amazed by how hard some people with severe communication disabilities will try to communicate. I do not find it amazing at all. I expect nothing less. It is why I will go out of my way to overcome communication barriers and help others to do the same. It is our ability to communicate in multiple ways which marks us out from so much of the animal kingdom. 

We need people who can read, who read with understanding and who read for enjoyment as well as information. People need to be able to read critically, to think about what they have read and assess it. They need to create their own ideas from what they read, hear and see. This cannot be done without language. This is what we need to base the education of the young on. 

We are being warned the government plans to spend less on libraries this year. That is wrong. We should be spending more, much more.  

Don't blame the majority for

the decisions of a minority.

The Israeli President is coming to visit and the pro-Palestinian "action group"(s) are making it clear that they are not happy with the invitation. They want him "disinvited". If he does come they want the government to arrest him and send him of to the International Court of Justice at the Hague. 

The pro-Palestinian groups have been active for many months now. They have been disrupting traffic, transport, businesses and other people's lives with the support of the law. They have claimed a "right to protest". They do not like what is going on in Gaza. 

The vast majority of people do not like what is going on in Gaza. How could they? It is the most appalling and distressing mess. But who is really responsible for this? Is it every person in Israel? Is it every Jew around the world? Is the President to blame?

I don't know as much as I perhaps should about the powers of the President of Israel but how is he supposed to halt government decisions? I doubt he can. As I understand it his role is largely ceremonial. Is he then to take the blame for all the decisions of the Netanyahu government? What about the Israelis themselves. By no means all of them voted for the same government but are they all responsible? Some of them at least have been protesting about what is going on. If there was an election held tomorrow would the government change? It well might. Who becomes responsible then?

And on the other side who is responsible? There was an election you say. The people of Gaza voted Hamas in. They are responsible. Really? What sort of election was it? Free and fair or manipulated? Is the destruction of Gaza what they voted for? How many of them would have settled for returning the hostages immediately in return for peace but have never had the opportunity to say that?

We have an election coming up in this state. I will vote. I am required to vote. The law says I must vote. My vote is just one vote. It is quite likely the candidate I vote for will not succeed and that the government will not be of my choosing. Do I have to take responsibility for all decisions made in the future? Do I accept a democratic result or must I go on protesting? 

Where does my responsibility end? If I want to blame someone else do I object in a civilised, quiet manner or do I need to protest loudly, perhaps violently? 

 

  

"Little girls wear pink"

my maternal grandmother informed me as I told her I did not want to wear pink, that I did not like pink, that I wanted a blue dress. 

"Blue is for boys," she told me.

"It's for girls too!" 

I can remember being smacked hard for saying that. Nana was determined that I would be a "little girl" and that I would wear something pink and frilly. 

I still "hate" pink and frills. 

Nana made the dress of course. That is how things were done then. Your mother or your grandmother or your aunt or someone you knew made your clothes. There were no chains of Target or KMart or BigW back then.

I can remember that dress. It was made from a cotton fabric I think was called "haircord" and it was printed with tiny pink roses all over it. Yes, it was "pretty" I suppose. I remember the same fabric and same design also came in other colours, blue, yellow and possibly green. I would have been happy enough with blue or yellow. I did not like pink. Add in a frill of broderie anglaise "lace" that Nana thought looked "very nice" and I loathed it. The frill tickled.

It was my "other" dress. It was not my Sunday dress. That was green robia spot voile and smocked across the yoke. The smocking was not there just for decoration. It was there to make the garment last from one summer to the next. I wore it when I was two and then when I was three. The hem must have been lowered but I remember nothing of that. 

Yes, I was arguing about not wearing pink at age two. We were in the drapers which was just down the road from where my paternal grandparents lived. Nana must have come down on the train from the other side of the city. My mother was there. My paternal grandmother was there and Nana was there. Nana would get her way of course. If she did not then she would sulk and not do a good job of the dress. (She  was a good dressmaker.) 

I was reminded of this yesterday when a three year old I know appeared in front of me. She was wearing a pair of overalls that were a miniature version of an adult workman's work overalls. There was a spanner in one of the pockets and a small hammer in another. Her mother smiled and shrugged and said, "Her choice. I thought she might want to wear the pink ballet skirt."

"No, today is work. I am going to work," we were told.

As a garment the overalls were very practical apart from the difficulty of getting them on again if she "needed to go". She can pull them off her shoulders but not get them on again. Fair enough. They get flung in the washing machine. There is no need to worry about "spoiling" them. Oh, I would have loved to wear those.

Nana went on insisting I wear pink and that meant Middle Cat wore pink because clothes were passed down.  We had other clothes of course. Clothes were often passed around until they were no longer fit to be worn. Other pink things must have appeared but I do not remember them in the way I remember having to wear a pink frilly dress because it was what Nana wanted. 

Much later I remember my mother buying two dresses for my sisters. They must have been "on special", perhaps shop samples, from a drapery that was regarded as rather "exclusive". I do remember the sale sign across the window because of a black mark on it. It was still rare to buy clothing that way but those dresses were good. One was the colour of milk coffee. The other was a very pale teal. Both were embroidered around the borders but must have had deep hems as well. They lasted my sisters a long time, the way clothes were meant to last.  Me? Nana had made me yet another pink dress. It was made from pink nylon and "it doesn't need ironing". I loathed it but had to wear it. 

Grandma had brought up two boys and knew about practical clothing. She made shorts and overalls and knitted us traditional ganseys in the pattern her mother in law taught her. We girls had smocked dresses for "best" but there was never anything pink apart from the pink in the grub roses embroidered into the smocking.

Years later Grandma and I talked about this and she told me, "Your grandmother was dressing herself, not you." 

She was right. I still don't wear pink.  

  

There is a house being built

on land behind the group of units in which I now live. I was aware of it mostly because there were "fence" problems and the owner of the land in question was not being cooperative. 

It now turns out there may have been very good reasons for him not to be cooperative. He has been actively avoiding anything happening on "his" land until the footings were dug out and the foundations laid. That has now occurred and he, smilingly, came up with an offer to pay his half of the fencing costs. 

What he had not done was deal with the issue of a drainage pipe which flows from the units and the surrounding properties on to his land. Apparently it is "not his problem" because "it isn't there". It is apparently not on the paperwork at the local council and they are responsible for allowing building works to go ahead. 

The neighbour who came in to see me about all this told me the council has informed him the council says their records only go back to 1970. That seems very unlikely but this is what they are claiming. The units were built in 1966. As far as they are concerned the pipe does not exist. Really?

The water supply company also says "not our problem" because "our responsibility stops at the street". This is despite the fact that the pipe would have been put in by them when water was connected to all the surrounding properties.

It is a drainage pipe and the building works are lower than this unit so I am assuming water flows in that direction. Yes, it will flow on to the property. The pipe must direct the flow of the water from the neighbouring rooftops? I am no physicist and I am no engineer but it just seems to me you would want to avoid this sort of situation. It would be wise to get some advice? It would be wise to cooperate with your neighbours to be on this matter?

No, the owner has had the builder block the pipe with concrete. It was filled in when they laid the foundations. It was filled in against advice from a much more knowledgeable plumber.  Where will the water flow now? According to the owner of the land it is not his problem. The manager of the units is trying to do something about the situation. We have had no rain for weeks now but I suspect we might have a problem when it does and the water has nowhere to go. It might also mean the land beneath the new building dries out and damages the foundations. 

It is a potential muddy mess.