the researchers collaborated with a studentprotest to invite a representative of the SD is to give a guest lecture at the university and has been in the last couple of weeks the subject of debate in the media. In the debate of the scientists who signed the petition described as troublemakers, tyrants, and bullies.
In response to our op-ed, is looking for a representative for the SD are claiming that the protest was part of a PR campaign from our side, which is extremely concerned that the disqualification of the students. Commentators have also suggested that the protest was an attempt to restrict the freedom of speech and academic freedom. In our slutreplik we would like to clarify the facts and highlight a number of key points.
the Students are very capable of forming and expressing opinions about education and student empowerment is also something we value highly at the university. Our criticism of the invitation was not to disqualify any of the students. It was not a part of any public relations campaign, and not an attempt to restrict freedom of speech or academic freedom. We wanted to show that the invitation is concerned, are far more complex issues than a simple vote for or against academic freedom. The discussion of what the students brought about the invitation, revealed the need to discuss these issues further.
the Criticism of the invitation was a response to apathy in the face of the normalization of the racism that is going on. The normalization implies that “ racism appears to be somewhat inevitable, as it would be, of course, to invite SD to the university. The idea was that it would be a matter of course, that is perhaps what this whole debate has been about.
It is, therefore, deeply problematic, as commentators are claiming that we in the university should not be involved in the affairs of society, and when the SD politicians are dismissing the debates on the matter as ”ridiculous.” Something is very skewed when we have to sign a petition against a real threat and the ideology of the debate is described as a menacing, dangerous. Please note: this is SD’s policy, which threatens the freedom of the university as a place where people can express criticism towards the powers that be.
One week after a lecture, read an interview with the head of the department at JMG, without further ado, the quote Jomshof, who argues that the critique the benefit of the SD of the public. The statement puts the blame on his critics, suggesting that it is better to have the dissenters to remain silent. We believe that the university must work towards the normalisation of racism. The need to protect and expand the places available to discuss the university’s role in a democratic society, the researcher’s responsibilities, and what a free university would be able to be at it’s best. Therefore, it is only a pity that this debate has come to be characterized by a self-righteous, ignorant, and sloppy arguments.
<