Abertay student faces expulsion in row over ‘women have vaginas’ comment

[Metaphor]

No, not 99% AND no, not just the title, but also the content. Get it right before responding.

But then when you read the contents of many of the conservative articles you see them talking about multiple things she said that got her into a disciplinary investigation. One article for example says she was in trouble for comments that included a and b....they don't even mention any other comments but one can logically infer there are more than 2 or it'd be superfluous to write "comments that included a and b."...and so they were hiding those comments and cherry-picking the ones that sounded best for their audiences.

You do not know what they knew or didn't know, and you read their mind when you attribute the motive 'hiding' on deciding what to include in the article.

They have the same information from her interview but refused to report it.

You don't know they have the same information, and where they do, you don't know that they 'refused' to report it.

When you say they "refused" to report it, or they are "hiding" information, you are speculating on motives and actions you have no evidence for.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, not 99% AND no, not just the title, but also the content. Get it right before responding.



They have the same information from her interview but refused to report it.

You don't know they have the same information, and where they do, you don't know that they 'refused' to report it.

When you say they "refused" to report it, or they are "hiding" information, you are speculating on motives and actions you have no evidence for.

It's the way niche markets work.

 

[TSwizzle]

Cleared;

A mother-of-two law student who was investigated by university chiefs after saying 'women have vaginas' has today been cleared of misconduct. Mature student Lisa Keogh, 29, was hauled before a disciplinary panel at the University of Abertay in Dundee after her comments made during a seminar on transgender issues were reported to tutors by her classmates. But after a two month probe, which took place while she underwent her final year exams, the university's disciplinary board has decided not to uphold the misconduct charge against her.

DailyMail

Two months

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

FAKE NEWS

The article starts with a flashy title that if you read the article you can see is about 10% of the things she claims she said. Moreover, 90% of this article was devoted to the lady's side of the story, didn't say anything about the exact context in which she said things probably for a reason, and the University denies this is how it went down. The University is bound by law not to discuss specifics of students attending and so cannot defend itself with specifics, but the article also did not tell the other side of the story from students. Another article hits some other topics and also says that Keogh herself said that other students said she said women were the weaker sex and called them "man-hating feminists." So it is clear right from the get-go of reading the catchy title and article that it isn't telling the whole story. Regardless of who is right or wrong, the university also says it is required by law to investigate all complaints and so of course she is being investigated after other students complained of harassment such as calling them man-hating feminists and we don't know what else. There's also no evidence she is even being considered for expulsion since the university cannot comment. This is a case of someone going over the top during class hours saying harassing things (probably) and then going to the media screaming, "Help, I'm going to be expelled from school for saying women have vaginas!!!11!" I will add that I bet also at least one of the other students said something that could be construed as harassing to her as well. And that just underscores the fact we are not hearing the full story from screamingly paranoid conservative press and that this is a thing that will blow over. So calm down.

Emphasis added. Paranoid propaganda.

 

[Gun Nut]

I guess some people need to be outraged just to get hard their exaggerations and flat out lies to appear believable.

FIFY

 

[Trausti]

But apparently her hurtful statement that water is wet is still under investigation.

 

[Politesse]

But apparently her hurtful statement that water is wet is still under investigation.

So all of this was... clickbait, constructed around an incident whose facts were never made public/clear, and which had no lasting consequences on anyone involved.

 

[Metaphor]

But apparently her hurtful statement that water is wet is still under investigation.

So all of this was... clickbait, constructed around an incident whose facts were never made public/clear, and which had no lasting consequences on anyone involved.

Huh? The outcomes were not known at the time the investigation was opened, because the investigation was not concluded. You also don't know what the consequences were to the student with an investigation hanging over her head.

(I was investigated at work once for a Facebook comment I made. It didn't matter I knew my comment was completely justified and did not reflect on me or my company, but it still caused me a great deal of anxiety during the 'investigation'.)

 

[Politesse]

But apparently her hurtful statement that water is wet is still under investigation.

So all of this was... clickbait, constructed around an incident whose facts were never made public/clear, and which had no lasting consequences on anyone involved.

Huh? The outcomes were not known at the time the investigation was opened, because the investigation was not concluded. You also don't know what the consequences were to the student with an investigation hanging over her head.

(I was investigated at work once for a Facebook comment I made. It didn't matter I knew my comment was completely justified and did not reflect on me or my company, but it still caused me a great deal of anxiety during the 'investigation'.)

I didn't say the outcome was known in advance, though everyone not brainwashed by conservative propoganda did, in fact, know exactly how this was most likely to end. What was never clear, and still isn't clear, is what the student was being investigated for in the first place and whether expulsion was ever so much as considered in response to said accusations. The claim that it was over a single comment contradicts what little was stated by the school or even by the accused, so the headline is a straightforward lie, and the facts of the matter weren't, and now never will be, known to the public. And we now know the outcome for certain as well, making this a complete non-story, even though it will still be vaguely cited later as an example of "Woke fascism", even though the matter was in fact resolved in exactly the opposite direction to what such a conspiracy theory would have predicted.

 

[Trausti]

Huh? The outcomes were not known at the time the investigation was opened, because the investigation was not concluded. You also don't know what the consequences were to the student with an investigation hanging over her head.

(I was investigated at work once for a Facebook comment I made. It didn't matter I knew my comment was completely justified and did not reflect on me or my company, but it still caused me a great deal of anxiety during the 'investigation'.)

I didn't say the outcome was known in advance, though everyone not brainwashed by conservative propoganda did, in fact, know exactly how this was most likely to end. What was never clear, and still isn't clear, is what the student was being investigated for in the first place and whether expulsion was ever so much as considered in response to said accusations. The claim that it was over a single comment contradicts what little was stated by the school or even by the accused, so the headline is a straightforward lie, and the facts of the matter weren't, and now never will be, known to the public. And we now know the outcome for certain as well, making this a complete non-story, even though it will still be vaguely cited later as an example of "Woke fascism", even though the matter was in fact resolved in exactly the opposite direction to what such a conspiracy theory would have predicted.

That the outcome wasn't punishment is beside the point. There never should have been an investigation. All this does is chill speech and make people self-censor, lest they offend the easily offended.

 

[Metaphor]

Huh? The outcomes were not known at the time the investigation was opened, because the investigation was not concluded. You also don't know what the consequences were to the student with an investigation hanging over her head.

(I was investigated at work once for a Facebook comment I made. It didn't matter I knew my comment was completely justified and did not reflect on me or my company, but it still caused me a great deal of anxiety during the 'investigation'.)

I didn't say the outcome was known in advance, though everyone not brainwashed by conservative propoganda did, in fact, know exactly how this was most likely to end. What was never clear, and still isn't clear, is what the student was being investigated for in the first place and whether expulsion was ever so much as considered in response to said accusations. The claim that it was over a single comment contradicts what little was stated by the school or even by the accused, so the headline is a straightforward lie, and the facts of the matter weren't, and now never will be, known to the public. And we now know the outcome for certain as well, making this a complete non-story, even though it will still be vaguely cited later as an example of "Woke fascism", even though the matter was in fact resolved in exactly the opposite direction to what such a conspiracy theory would have predicted.

The headline was not a lie--expulsion is a possible consequence of any investigation.

You may think it's a "non-story" that students made a complaint about a fellow student saying 'women have vaginas'. The point is that the Woke are so emboldened that they think this was investigation-worthy.

In a previous decade, nobody would dream to complain to management that somebody uttered facts in their presence about sex and anatomy.

 

[TSwizzle]

I didn't say the outcome was known in advance, though everyone not brainwashed by conservative propoganda did, in fact, know exactly how this was most likely to end. What was never clear, and still isn't clear, is what the student was being investigated for in the first place and whether expulsion was ever so much as considered in response to said accusations. The claim that it was over a single comment contradicts what little was stated by the school or even by the accused, so the headline is a straightforward lie, and the facts of the matter weren't, and now never will be, known to the public. And we now know the outcome for certain as well, making this a complete non-story, even though it will still be vaguely cited later as an example of "Woke fascism", even though the matter was in fact resolved in exactly the opposite direction to what such a conspiracy theory would have predicted.

There was no way of knowing for certain what the conclusion would have been. Also, you don't know how much influence the publicity had on the decision either. If the press and MP hadn't got involved, maybe the university would have booted her out.

 

[zorq]

Huh? The outcomes were not known at the time the investigation was opened, because the investigation was not concluded. You also don't know what the consequences were to the student with an investigation hanging over her head.

(I was investigated at work once for a Facebook comment I made. It didn't matter I knew my comment was completely justified and did not reflect on me or my company, but it still caused me a great deal of anxiety during the 'investigation'.)

I didn't say the outcome was known in advance, though everyone not brainwashed by conservative propoganda did, in fact, know exactly how this was most likely to end. What was never clear, and still isn't clear, is what the student was being investigated for in the first place and whether expulsion was ever so much as considered in response to said accusations. The claim that it was over a single comment contradicts what little was stated by the school or even by the accused, so the headline is a straightforward lie, and the facts of the matter weren't, and now never will be, known to the public. And we now know the outcome for certain as well, making this a complete non-story, even though it will still be vaguely cited later as an example of "Woke fascism", even though the matter was in fact resolved in exactly the opposite direction to what such a conspiracy theory would have predicted.

The headline was not a lie--expulsion is a possible consequence of any investigation.

You may think it's a "non-story" that students made a complaint about a fellow student saying 'women have vaginas'. The point is that the Woke are so emboldened that they think this was investigation-worthy.

In a previous decade, nobody would dream to complain to management that somebody uttered facts in their presence about sex and anatomy.

How are you not paying attention? We STILL don't know specifically what conduct the university was investigating or specifically what the accused was even accused of doing.

Just because the accused claimed that she was being investigated over the statement, "Women have vaginas," doesn't actually indicate that that was the full extent or even PART of what the investigation was investigating. (Even the link you posted includes a comment from the university explaining that the content of the accused's speech was not part of the investigation.)

Your outrage is manufactured out of facts that are completely unsupported by objective evidence and entirely tainted by ideological baggage and yellow journalism.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Politesse]

Huh? The outcomes were not known at the time the investigation was opened, because the investigation was not concluded. You also don't know what the consequences were to the student with an investigation hanging over her head.

(I was investigated at work once for a Facebook comment I made. It didn't matter I knew my comment was completely justified and did not reflect on me or my company, but it still caused me a great deal of anxiety during the 'investigation'.)

I didn't say the outcome was known in advance, though everyone not brainwashed by conservative propoganda did, in fact, know exactly how this was most likely to end. What was never clear, and still isn't clear, is what the student was being investigated for in the first place and whether expulsion was ever so much as considered in response to said accusations. The claim that it was over a single comment contradicts what little was stated by the school or even by the accused, so the headline is a straightforward lie, and the facts of the matter weren't, and now never will be, known to the public. And we now know the outcome for certain as well, making this a complete non-story, even though it will still be vaguely cited later as an example of "Woke fascism", even though the matter was in fact resolved in exactly the opposite direction to what such a conspiracy theory would have predicted.

That the outcome wasn't punishment is beside the point. There never should have been an investigation. All this does is chill speech and make people self-censor, lest they offend the easily offended.

So your proposition is that Abertay University should stop investigating student conduct incidents? What are you proposing should be done when one is reported?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wow, she really milked her 15 minutes of fame. She's probably next going to run for political office with a slogan, "I've been silenced!"

 

[Politesse]

The headline was not a lie--expulsion is a possible consequence of any investigation.

By that logic, every police investigation could generate a headline like "Alabama man may face death penalty over jay-walking incident". There's no reason to assume expulsion was ever so much as considered in this particular case, and indeed it seems exceedingly unlikely that it would have been, unless some more serious incident that we don't know about was involved. Abertay students do not, in fact, routinely get expelled for disagreeing with their professors.

You may think it's a "non-story" that students made a complaint about a fellow student saying 'women have vaginas'. The point is that the Woke are so emboldened that they think this was investigation-worthy.

We only have the word of the accused that said statement was a factor at all, and she did not claim it was the only offense; in fact, she overtly describes several other exchanges in her own account, indicating at tthe very least that she was routinely disrupting class. So yes, the headline is a lie.

Why do conservatives think they have a right to teach whatever "lessons" they like in the middle of other people's classes? You want to teach a bunch of unscientific bullshit about how confused you are on the biology of sex, feel free to start your own school and teach it there, if you think you can recruit any students to it. If I am a professor and you are enrolled in my course, you don't have any inherent right to disrupt my classroom, which is a lecture hall, not a diplomatic comittee. If you paid for my lecture, you're entitled listen to my lecture. You are not entitled to teach your own lecture during my time, and that of the other students who have also paid for my lecture. Some dissent is fine, but if a student is regularly interrupting my lectures to hawk some ideological bullshit, you bet your ass I'd ask them to either be quiet or leave, whether I agreed with them ideologically or not. And since we live in a bureacratic hellscape these days, asking a student to be quiet is a mandatory reporting incident, so the incident would then be investigated, in part because students themselves are considered to have a right to defend their own actions. They would not be expelled, that idea is very far-fetched. The idea wouldn't even be floated as a possibility. If anything, my actions would be more likely to be placed under scrutiny than my student's in such a case. Back when I was a student, this was not the case; disruptive students just got the boot, and no one had any right of review. But it has become much more difficult to punish students for minor conduct issues... specifically because of right-wing political maneuvering, not in spite of it.

I would ask who the fuck are "the Woke", but you have already previously demonstrated that no amount of facts can sway you from your conspiracy theories in that regard. Even if indeed there is such a conspiracy, they obviously hold no sway whatsoever over the Abertay office of student conduct. So what's the story? You're mad that students have the right to make complaints? That they sometimes complain about things you don't agree with? Tough fucking shit. No one owes you their silence.

 

[Politesse]

Wow, she really milked her 15 minutes of fame. She's probably next going to run for political office with a slogan, "I've been silenced!"

It's too bad she's not an American, she could have a thrilling career on AM radio by now.

 

[Metaphor]

By that logic, every police investigation could generate a headline like "Alabama man may face death penalty over jay-walking incident".

Non, unless jay walking, as a charge, can carry up to the death penalty in Alabama.

There's no reason to assume expulsion was ever so much as considered in this particular case, and indeed it seems exceedingly unlikely that it would have been, unless some more serious incident that we don't know about was involved. Abertay Students do not, in fact, routinely get expelled for disagreeing with their professors.

Professors didn't complain--other students did.

We only have the word of the accused that said statement was a factor at all, and she did not claim it was the only offense; in fact, she overtly describes several other exchanges in her own account, indicating at tthe very least that she was routinely disrupting class. So yes, the headline is a lie.

Non. It is your perception that she was 'routinely disrupting class'. She was saying things in class that others disagreed with. That is not 'disruption', unless you are an authoritarian.

Why do conservatives think they have a right to teach whatever "lessons" they like in the middle of other people's classes? You want to teach a bunch of unscientific bullshit about how confused you are on the biology of sex, feel free to start your own school and teach it there, if you think you can recruit any students to it. You don't have any inherent right to disrupt my classroom, which is a lecture hall, not a diplomatic comittee. If you paid for my lecture, you're entitled listen to my lecture. You are not entitled to teach your own lecture during my time, and that of the other students who have also paid for my lecture. Some dissent is fine, but if a student is regularly interrupting my lectures to hawk some ideological bullshit, you bet your ass I'd ask them to either be quiet or leave, whether I agreed with them ideologically or not. And since we live in a bureacratic hellscape these days, asking a student to be quiet is a mandatory reporting incident, so the incident would then be investigated. They would not be expelled, though. The idea wouldn't even be floated as a possibility. If anything, my actions would be more likely to be placed under scrutiny than my student's in such a case.

Your rant is based on nothing other than your perception that the student was unfairly 'disruptive'.

I would ask who the fuck are "the Woke", but you have already previously demonstrated that no amount of facts can sway you from your conspiracy theories in that regard. If indeed there is such a conspiracy, they obviously hold no sway whatsoever over the Abertay office of student conduct.

Oy gevalt. The Woke are people who hold a particular set of ideological beliefs about race, sex, and other matters. It is not a 'conspiracy' any more than claiming Catholics exist and there exists a Catholic ideology.

"No sway whatsoever" is an unevidenced assumption on your part not supported by facts. We do not know why the 'investigation' took so long, whether the complaints were unanimously dismissed, the amount of internal debate, or whether a different investigative officer would have made a different decision.

So what's the story? You're mad that students have the right to make complaints? That they sometimes complain about things you don't agree with? Tough fucking shit. No one owes you their silence.

Incredible that you champion the right of people to complain but you paint talking in class (if people with a certain ideology claim to feel offended by such talk), as 'disruptive'.

 

[Politesse]

Non, unless jay walking, as a charge, can carry up to the death penalty in Alabama.

There were no "charges" in this case, a student conduct board being, as it is, not a court room. And there is, for the umpteenth time, no indication of a policy of expulsion over ideological disagreements,. That part was entirely made up by the press. No one involved in the case said anything about expulsion except for the student.

Professors didn't complain--other students did.

They, too, paid for their seats. A pretty penny, at that. They weren't paying to listen to some kid argue with the professor or other students over bullshit, let alone (as seems likely if not certain given that no facts whatsoever are known about the incidents) to be subjected to sexual/gender-based slurs by their fellow students.

Non. It is your perception that she was 'routinely disrupting class'. She was saying things in class that others disagreed with. That is not 'disruption', unless you are an authoritarian.

You have a weird idea of how a lecture hall is supposed be conducted. It's not authoritarian to expect a lecture to be given during one. If you want to argue about politics at school, join the debate team.

As for routinely disrupting class, she herself describes several incidents in which she was arguing with fellow students and the professor about questions other than the planned topic of the class. Unless this was in the context of some planned debate, which seems unlikely in an upper division lecture course at a law program, then my description proceeds directly from the self-descriptive testimony of the accused. Did you even read the article we're all discussing?

Incredible that you champion the right of people to complain but you paint talking in class (if people with a certain ideology claim to feel offended by such talk), as 'disruptive'.

Not necessarily. I'm happy to invite discussion on various topics, etc. But you don't have a right to just start arguing in the middle of classtime without so much as a by your leave, no. Why would you? This isn't a town hall meeting, it's a lecture course. You pay to receive instruction, not give it. If you want to lecture on your personal interpretation of "science", I would recommend getting hired by the university as a lecturer, and proposing your own class to the curriculum committee on its own merit, as opposed to interrupting someone else's.

 

[Metaphor]

There were no "charges" in this case,

For fuck's sake, Politesse, you introduced the analogy with an offense under the law, not me.

a student conduct board being, as it is, not a court room. And there is, for the umpteenth time, no indication of a policy of expulsion over ideological disagreements,. That part was entirely made up by the press. No one involved in the case said anything about expulsion except for the student.

The complaints were not about 'ideological disagreements'.

they, too, paid for their seats. A pretty penny, at that. They weren't paying to listen to some kid argue with the professor over bullshit.

So now the complaint is "this student wasted class time by talking about stuff in class and the professor didn't shut her down?"

]You have a weird idea of what a lecture is supposed to look like. It's not authoritarian to expect a lecture to be given during one. If you want to argue about politics at school, join the debate team.

For somebody who claims that the article does not provide enough facts to talk about them, you sure seem to be sure of the facts.

The article appears to talk about a law 'lecture' in the first few paragraphs, but this appeared to be online and students appeared to be allowed to interact during the lecture (otherwise, the lecturer would not have needed to mute the accused.

I also have taken law classes and almost all student-lecturer contact time was in the form of seminars, not lectures. That is, class time where certain issues are discussed between academic and students, and students with each other.

Not necessarily. I'm happy to invite discussion on various topics, etc. But you don't have a right to just start arguing in the middle of classtime without so much as a by your leave, no. Why would you? This isn't a town hall meeting, it's a lecture course. You pay to receive instruction, not give it. If you want to lecture on "science", I would recommend getting hired by the university as a lecturer, and proposing your own class to the curriculum committee on its own merit, as opposed to interrupting someone else's.

Again, you are making unwarranted assumptions about the nature of the lecture and the 'interruption'. By your own admission, you do not know the facts.