Bettina Arndt: La
Trobe university should present the Security bill to the Protestors describing
me as a Bigot
see Bettina Arndt at
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dj7xIReWwAAnT1b.jpg:large
Newsletter published on August 10, 2018
(1) Free speech now
comes with security costs? - The Spectator
(2) La Trobe
university should present the Security bill to the Protestors describing me as a
bigot - Bettina Arndt
(3) Latrobe
university to pay the cost of security for anti-Feminist speech by Bettina
Arndt
(4) Bettina Arndt:
Beware the wrath of Angry Men - and their Mothers (POSTER for a talk at Federal
Parliament)
(1) Free speech now
comes with security costs? - The Spectator
Free speech now comes with security costs?
Matthew Lesh
7 August 2018 6:07 PM
La Trobe University is encouraging censorious behaviour by
charging special security fees for an event with commentator Bettina Arndt
hosted by the campus Liberal club.
Security fees create
a heckler’s veto: the charge empowers the people who disagree to organise the biggest, most aggressive and
therefore costliest protest they can muster. The Liberal club could
ultimately be forced to cancel the event if security fees become too high. In
the end, the censors win, free speech loses.
The charging of security fees to the Liberal club is a form
of victim blaming. The disturbance is
not expected to come from within event, it could only come from outside. It
makes no sense to punish Liberal students for the danger imposed by others.
There is also a serious inconsistency issue which reveals a
university closed to opposing perspectives. If La Trobe does not charge left-wing groups
for speakers then why are they charging Liberal students for a speaker? Is
it because they are seeking to discourage and punish certain speech?
This inconsistency would be unconstitutional in the United
States, where the Supreme Court has
declared that the content of speech is not justification for additional
costs.
This is why the University of California at Berkeley paid
hundreds of thousands of dollars to secure events with provocateur Milo
Yiannopoulos and conservative Ben Shapiro. The university may not have liked
their speech, but they declared themselves open to free debate and put money
behind their principles.
La Trobe appears to be taking a very different approach to
free debate. Revealingly, the security bill came after La Trobe withdrew their
initial ban of Arndt.
Arndt has become a controversial figure. She is a sex therapist who writes and
speaks about gender relations and domestic violence. These are difficult
topics – particularly when you question the dominant narrative about campus
sexual harassment and assault, as Arndt does.
In an era of intellectual monoculture on campus, Arndt is precisely the type of person
that our universities should be welcoming. She helps provide the missing counterpoint to
the left wing perspective, the missing debate that is necessary for
effective teaching and research.
John Stuart Mill wrote that ‘He who knows only his own side
of the case knows little of that.’ You have no reason to prefer your own ideas
if you do not understand the opposing perspective. Nor is it good enough to
‘hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers,’ Mill says, ‘He must be
able to hear them from persons who actually believe them… he must know them in
their most plausible and persuasive form’.
The near ban and disgraceful security fees are not the first
sign that something is wrong at La Trobe. The Institute of Public Affairs’ free
speech on campus research has revealed La Trobe’s serious lack of viewpoint
diversity.
The IPA’s Free Speech on Campus Audit awarded La Trobe a
‘Red’ ranking for policies that forbid ‘unintentional… offence’ and language
that causes ’emotional injury’. It is impossible to freely explore controversial
ideas without potentially causing unintentional offence or perhaps even
emotional distress. It is difficult to hear ideas that are different from your
own – but being intellectually challenged is the entire purpose of a
university.
The on-campus experience reflects these policies. Students
have told the IPA about lecturers encouraging them ‘to pursue social justice
causes’ – instead of teaching all ideas and letting students reach their own
conclusions. They have also reported that academics mock conservatives in class
and give them lower marks.
In response classical liberal and conservative students are
pretending to hold a left-wing perspective or say nothing. ‘Generally, I don’t
talk in class on political issues,’ one student, who has seen their conservative
classmates harassed by tutors, said.
In the past, La Trobe was well known for their radicalism,
protests, and differing ideas. Today, the university is suffering from the left
wing monoculture disease. La Trobe has a responsibility to not shy away from
debate and encourage the voicing of a range of perspectives.
Matthew Lesh is a research fellow at the Institute of Public
Affairs.
Editor’s note: Since this piece was published, La Trobe
administrators appear to have had a change of heart. Then again, while free
speech is as glorious as the first blossoms at the end of winter, the will of
university administrators is as variable and as cruel as the first gusts of
spring (ahem).
(2) La Trobe should
present the Security bill to the Protestors describing me as a bigot - Bettina
Arndt
Bettina Arndt
@thebettinaarndt
Aug 9
La Trobe should present the security bill to the students who
have organised the protest describing me as a bigot.
(3) Latrobe
university to pay the cost of security for anti-Feminist speech by Bettina
Arndt
Freedom of speech comes first as uni upgrades campus rally
security
SAMANTHA HUTCHINSON
VICTORIAN POLITICAL REPORTER
8:08PM AUGUST 7, 2018
La Trobe University administrators will pay to beef-up
security on campus for a Liberal Party event featuring prominent therapist and
social commentator Bettina Arndt, after protesters threatened to derail the
event with a “rally against sexism and bigotry”.
Liberal students at La Trobe have considered changing the
date of Ms Arndt’s address over fears they wouldn’t be able to pay for security
to restrain a rally planned to coincide with her speech.
But university administrators yesterday told The Australian
they had decided the university would cover the cost of security, out of a
desire to preserve free speech and discussion on campus. “We welcome free speech
and the event will go ahead,” a spokesman said.
“Event security will be provided by the university at no cost
to student organisers.”
Liberal students arrived at university this week to find the
campus dotted with posters urging students to protest against Ms Arndt, who will
deliver an address challenging claims of a rape crisis on campus.
University administrators have charged the club $235 for room
booking and one security guard to cover the event. The invoice also stated the
club was liable for the total cost, which will depend on final numbers, hours
worked and other variables such as damage.
Club members had said they were concerned additional security
costs could force them to pull the event. But they applauded the university’s
decision yesterday to meet the security costs.
“It’s an exciting
development, it just a shame that it came after a bit of media pressure and
hopefully next time they’ll think twice before moving to censor an event off the
bat,” La Trobe University Liberal Club president James Plozza told The
Australian.
La Trobe University has repeatedly defended its desire to
encourage free speech and robust debate on campus, despite administrators
initially voicing concerns about Ms Arndt’s speech failing to align with the
uni’s own campaign against sexual violence.
Free-market think thank the Institute of Public Affairs
applauded the decision, and said more Australian universities should follow suit
because the risk of protests was pricing clubs out of putting on provocative
speakers.
Analysts pointed to Sydney University Conservative Club,
which had to spend hundreds of dollars on additional security for an event
headlined by conservative commentator Miranda Devine, on “the dangers of
socialism”.
“The charging of security fees is censorious. It is punishing
the victims of a potential abusive protest,” IPA research fellow Matthew Lesh
said. “This also creates a ‘heckler’s veto’ because if they amass a big enough
protest with high enough security costs then the Liberal students will not be
able to afford to have her on campus. If (universities) fail to protect the
speech of controversial figures they are failing to live up to their legal
mandates to safeguard free expression.”
“It’s an exciting development, it just a shame that it came
after a bit of media pressure and hopefully next time they’ll think twice before
moving to censor an event off the bat,” La Trobe University Liberal Club
president James Plozza told The Australian.
La Trobe University has repeatedly defended its desire to
encourage free speech and robust debate on campus, despite administrators
initially voicing concerns about Ms Arndt’s speech failing to align with the
uni’s own campaign against sexual violence.
Free-market think thank the Institute of Public Affairs
applauded the decision, and said more Australian universities should follow suit
because the risk of protests was pricing clubs out of putting on provocative
speakers.
Analysts pointed to Sydney University Conservative Club,
which had to spend hundreds of dollars on additional security for an event
headlined by conservative commentator Miranda Devine, on “the dangers of
socialism”.
“The charging of security fees is censorious. It is punishing
the victims of a potential abusive protest,” IPA research fellow Matthew Lesh
said. “This also creates a ‘heckler’s veto’ because if they amass a big enough
protest with high enough security costs then the Liberal students will not be
able to afford to have her on campus. If (universities) fail to protect the
speech of controversial figures they are failing to live up to their legal
mandates to safeguard free expression.”
(4) Bettina Arndt:
Beware the wrath of Angry Men - and their Mothers (POSTER for a talk at Federal
Parliament)
Bettina Arndt
@thebettinaarndt
Aug 7
{POSTER}
Senator David Leyonhjelm invites you to a conversation with ...
Senator David Leyonhjelm invites you to a conversation with ...
BETTINA ARNDT
"Beware the wrath of angry men - and their mothers"
It wasn't just angry white men who voted for Trump - he also
had the support of white women furious that the men in their lives were being
ignored by the government. Australian politicians think they are winning the
women's vote by tilting laws and policies to advantage women at the expense of
men. But here too angry men are being supported by huge numbers of women - the
mothers, sisters, friends of men who are being done over in our increasingly
anti-male society. Politiocians brown-nose to the feminist vote at their
peril.
{END}
see poster at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dj7xIReWwAAnT1b.jpg:large
Unfortunately it is only open to people working at Parliament
House. But just to let everyone know that I am doing my best to spread the
word! @DavidLeyonhjelm
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.