No tags yet.
By: Sienna Lovelock-Burtt and Sukriti Prasad
According to Wikipedia, Andrew Tate is a British-American social media personality, businessman and former professional kickboxer. According to the Urban Dictionary, he's the bald dude you see on TikTok who says he's rich and has a Discord university that costs 50 bucks to attend. So what's the big deal about this guy? Why has he been the hot topic on everyone’s tongue lately?
Tate has been involved in several scandals. Allegations of domestic abuse, racist and sexist remarks have been leveled against him. Videos of him engaging in sexual activities have been leaked.
About a month ago, our school held a Forum to discuss Andrew Tate, his sexist remarks and developments in his situation. During the (incredibly well attended) Forum, many different viewpoints were raised. Relevantly, some of the discussion centred around whether or not Tate should be given a platform and the effect of his misogynistic rhetoric on society.
One person in particular argued that while Tate was an extreme misogynist, his views were not entirely wrong. They stated that women were biologically less inclined towards certain areas, such as STEM. However, it is not just what this person said that created all the controversy, but the Forum team’s response.
One of Forum’s student moderators took the microphone away from the student before he finished, effectively cutting him off. This raised a great deal of controversy within the community due to the perceived censorship of the student.
So, how has the student body responded to the incident in Forum? We conducted some interviews with both students who attended the Forum, as well as students who later learned about what happened. Below are some excerpts. Click on the arrows to read the comments in full.
Did you know about what happened during the Andrew Tate Forum? How do you feel about what happened at the Forum?
Anonymous: It felt one-sided
“I didn't go to it myself, but from what I heard it seemed like a really one-sided Forum. I think it’s pretty obvious that Andrew Tate has some pretty negative views, so it’s very easy to, without a lot of information or context on him, jump to a view of just hating him. I think the idea behind Forum is debate. But this Forum was structured in a way where people were just getting up to complain about Andrew Tate and, to some extent, men in general, rather than have a civilised debate about Andrew Tate’s impact on society, both positive and negative.”
Isabel Phan, student: We only talked the problem, not solutions
Ms. Wilmink, teacher: There are times to deplatform, this wasn't one of them
Should the microphone have been taken away during the Forum?
Anonymous: No, that's censorship
“No. If you're having an open Forum to talk about something, I feel you should be able to withstand any ideas about the topic, whether they are controversial or not. You can refute and rebut all of them, but taking away the mic is a bit extreme. If someone talks about the topic with a perspective that you dislike and you take the mic away from them, that's censorship.”
Ms. Wilmink, teacher: There are better and more natural corrective mechanisms
Do you feel UWC is an echochamber?
Anonymous: Freedom of speech feels conditional here
“I think that this school loves to perpetuate certain ideas when it favours the school to do so. So it agrees with freedom of speech until someone says something they don't like, and then they no longer have that freedom.”
Anonymous: Yes, and a lack of acceptance of other opinions
Isabel Phan, student: Can we go beyond just talking awareness?
Have you ever felt your voice was silenced at UWC due to a belief you held or something you said?
Anonymous: Yes, and it shows we're missing the UWC values.
“There have definitely been times where I’ve disagreed with the general opinion of those around me on controversial topics, but felt I couldn’t express that. It’s partially because I know everyone is going to disagree with me and turn against me in an instant. That’s kind of a problem. UWCSEA’s values are supposed to create a collaborative community where everyone respects each other's opinions, but that feels like it’s missing.”
Anonymous: Yes, my Christianity.
Based on the responses we received, should we prioritise freedom of speech over people's comfort? Here's what we think.
School is supposed to be a protected environment. However, school is also meant to be a place where new viewpoints and ideas can be explored. Limiting the views that people can express causes intellectual stagnation.
This Forum had one of the highest attendance rates. The Forum team’s allowing of there to be such a one-sided debate with inadequate levels of context on the subject was a shortcoming on their part.
The problem at hand isn't what the student was saying, it was how, as an institution, we chose to react - and by extension, how we react to any controversial opinion or form of opposition. This has brought to light a larger issue that is faced by our school: the idea of UWC as a liberal echochamber.
Unfortunately, there does appear to be a consensus that our school creates an environment where having a different opinion is not only considered unusual, but is often shut down. Similar opinions shine through in the results of the climate survey - students don’t feel they can express themselves without incurring rebuke. As a school, we pride ourselves on being accepting and diverse, but what happens when this diversity extends from the colour of our skin to our political beliefs?
This outlines the core problem with this situation, and by extension our school. While there certainly exists good intention, somewhere along the line, we went from being a community of like-minded individuals with shared values and beliefs, to an institution that mindlessly repeats the same beliefs over and over, with no scope for question or opposition.
Yes, we agree that what the person was saying was wrong. However, by not letting them finish what they were saying, not only did we fail to educate them on why what they were saying was wrong, we also reinforced their current belief system - because they may now harbour resentment towards us, and by extension the topic of conversation.
However, freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. Having guidelines in place in response to inappropriate and incorrect statements is important to protect student wellbeing. Encouraging open debate to educate students is key; silencing them is not.
However we also understand that we are in school, an environment where the management, not students, is responsible for student safety and wellbeing. Which is why we understand that some speech needs to be filtered, moderated, and generally have consequences. But this was not one such instance.
It is vital that we let people speak their minds, even when they’re wrong, especially when they’re wrong. We need to come together to break down these harmful ideas. Because we can silence them all we want, but it won’t solve the problem, it’ll only make it harder to solve. Only when people understand the fault of their ways will they be willing to change.
Commentaires