As first reported in the Telegraph, FSU member and University College London (UCL) academic Michelle Shipworth has been banned from teaching her own course, after a Chinese student complained that discussing modern slavery in China was too “provocative”. Incredibly, UCL sided with students who said they were “distressed” by her handling of the topic, and imposed a raft of restrictions on Michelle in order to ensure their courses remained “commercially viable” to Chinese students.
Michelle Shipworth is an Associate Professor at UCL’s Bartlett School of Environment, Energy and Resources, and has taught at the institution since 2009.
Michelle found herself under investigation after a seminar last October examining data from the Global Slavery Index 2014. The seminar forms part of her ‘Data Detectives’ training module, and is designed to prepare students for an assignment which external examiners have described as “particularly innovative” and “excellent”, and her Faculty’s teaching lead has previously stated is worthy of a teaching award.
This line of “argumentation” reminds strongly of reactionary US states and their recent bans on discussing slavery, racism and gender issues at schools.
If you think the conservative and reactionary politicians would stand against Chinas economic power, let this be a wakeup call. If there is money to be made with subjecting people to forced labor, political opression and inhumane living conditions, they will work together with governments like in China. If you think the step further, you will see this in a time, where the UK is shunend for enabling forced labor through denying victims of forced labor access to courts and protection and where “conservatives” in Germany suggest forced labor for asylum seekers at less than 7% of the minimum wage.
There is movements in the European “conservative” politics to enable and further exploitation and forced labor of immigrants and refugees. Talking about how the situation in China is specifically, how European companies are making nice profits with forced labor there, and how the proposed structures in Europe could bear many similiarities to China, is a danger to this “conservative” movement.
The current EU proposal for more strict regulation of imports from forced labour are mainly furthered by the parliament and the EPP group (conservatives) has voiced many criticisms, trying to water the regulation down.
I think we need a different word for ‘conservative’. Because you get liberal-ish, constitution-respecting conservatives, and then you get authoritarian, corrupt ‘conservatives’ – and those are two completely different things. I can give an example.
Authoritarian is my go-to because it encompasses all of their common politics: forcing unpopular laws and initiatives, establishing and abusive a subset of the minority population, silencing dissent, and a constant push against broad social safety nets because they would interfere with the ruling class self interests.
Conservative is used to imply right wing. Much of their rhetorical techniques use conservative mindsets (things were better in the past, change won’t improve things, ‘great’ again etc).
Conservatives have been sidelined since Ragan and Thatcher. Neoliberalism displaced conservatives. With the left taking up liberalism as well the right hand to shift to distinguish itself. Now they are fiscal libertarians and right wing populists. These terms are not liked because they are deluded or extreme. So they still call themselves conservatives, because when you say right wing populist we think of fascists or Roman emperors that inspired fascists.
The students at Tiananmen square were a bit more stressed.
Yeah as they fucking lynched the soldiers
I think you got something mixed up.
He’s a little confused but he’s got the spirit.
Removed by mod
The propaganda outlet of the “Party for Socialism and Liberation” twists history in Chinas favor. Shocker. Defending Russias war in Ukraine too, of course
Despicable.
There is no war in ba sing se.
These accounts were true and well documented
Why didn’t they list any sources to vett their narrative then? I’d think that if it was well documented they would’ve linked the documents alongside the anti-China articles they listed in the footnotes.
The facts are there, it was the students lynching the soldiers. You can deflect from that all you want, it won’t change history.
That‘s really a ridiculous statement.
Last year there were reports about contracts that scholarship students from China had to sign. It’s not too far a stretch that students reported the professor for fear of repercussions based on such contracts.
https://www.dw.com/en/how-china-controls-its-top-students-in-germany/a-64901849
In Sweden, two universities cut ties with China over this:
Tens of Thousands of Students Pledge Loyalty to Beijing Before Arriving Abroad (January 2023)
Independent director and current affairs commentator Wang Longmeng said it is still worth understanding the practical meaning of phrases [in the students’ loyalty pledge agreements] like “serving your country” and “loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party,” even if the practice has been going on for years.
“The Western media have reported many cases of Chinese students and scholars stealing high-tech military technologies, and besieging protesters who supported Hong Kong’s anti-extradition protests,” Wang said. “A lot of people who have been awarded Chinese government scholarships to study abroad have basically been recruited by the state, and these agreements are the best proof of that.”
He likened the contracts to “selling one’s soul to the devil.”
“Their families are destined to become hostages,” he said. “Universities in democratic countries should refuse to cooperate with institutions like the China Scholarship Council, otherwise they will become accomplices in that hostage-taking.”
When a place of education fails its primary duty of education for the sake of money, it has failed at its core and those responsible should be held accountable.
This is like a library doubling late fees and adding checkout fees to stay “financially viable”. That’s not your fucking purpose. Your purpose is education.
Unfortunately this is a direct result of the government shafting the education sector. Lack of funding plus Brexit means that to stay afloat British universities have to get a certain quota of wealthy overseas (read: Chinese) students, or else face going under. It’s really depressing to see.
A student was distressed? Oh, poor little creature. Has to be handled with care, wrapped in cotton wool?
Grow up, student!
A complaining spoiled kid shielded from the truth is only the minor problem here. Her own university siding with this kid and putting commercial interest above academic freedom and accuracy in this spineless appeasing move is what makes me speechless.
True. Commercial interests should not have any place, in any university, in any shape and form.
I think older people - no offense - have no idea what a university is nowadays.
It’s about 40 years since I left university, and I’m afraid I do have a slight idea. And I don’t like it. At all.
If you know, you know. For all the others: It is not about academic virtues and studying and the pursuit of knowledge. It is about getting you ready for the job market and passing tests.
More so than 40 years ago, or even 20. In Germany, it is 25 years to be exact.
I’m pretty sure everyone here is arguing against what it (apparently) is and for what it should be.
I spent a good 50% of my education distressed… I wouldn’t quite recommend my academic path to anyone else, but learning new stuff can be a little scary, that comes with the job.
Everyone should ban China.
China is synonymous with IP theft. No one should have any business with them. Full stop.
IP itself is theft. Fuck IP.
No it isn’t. Some level of IP laws are a very, very good thing.
If I write a book or make a game, a publisher shouldn’t be allowed to come along, take it, and use their position in the industry to thoroughly outsell me.
There’s a lot of BS in current IP law, but that doesn’t mean IP law as a concept is bad.
This is what fucking happens when you start charging a fortune for university access.
People stop seeing it as an educational institution and start seeing it as a transaction. A service, with the students as customers.
“I pay tens of thousands for this, and I don’t like what’s being discussed, why am I paying to support this?”
This, and stuff like it, has been happening for a while, and crops up practically everywhere where university is locked behind a big paywall.
If you start structuring universities like a commercial enterprise, students will start treating it like one. They will start voting with their wallet.
There is a video on the issue (4 min)
