“Casual peer strain” is getting used to curb debate about controversial historic matters at Oxford, a college professor has claimed.
Prof Nigel Biggar stated some junior lecturers advised him they may not share opinions difficult “orthodox views” on matters like imperialism.
He stated it may be “harmful” as they might be “penalised” when it got here to jobs or exams.
Responding, Oxford’s historical past division stated it inspired various views.
The chair of its board, Prof Martin Conway, added it was a particular attribute of the college and was welcomed.
However Prof Biggar stated there was an orthodox view that empire was “at all times and in all places depraved” which was promoted with a “zeal” at Oxford, which meant some working within the subject felt constrained.
The feedback from Prof Biggar – who has said there are some aspects of empire Britain can take pride in – comply with criticism of a venture he leads referred to as Ethics and Empire, which goals to discover moral questions of empire.
In December, it was the subject of an open letter by nearly 60 academics at Oxford, who stated his strategy was “too polemical” to be taken critically.
He was additionally described as an “apologist for colonialism” in a second letter, signed by historians based outside of Oxford.
Prof Greater stated his work was not about defending the British Empire and “his notion” was that a few of the signatories needed to strain Oxford into halting it.
However Prof James McDougall, who helped organise the primary letter, and Dr Jon Wilson, who printed the second letter, stated that was not the intention.
Prof McDougall stated Prof Greater had publicised his views in nationwide newspapers and it was essential to point out different views are extra widespread.
He added that most of the signatories have contrasting views and Ethics and Empire was criticised due to its strategy and goals not as a result of it contradicts “imagined orthodoxy”.
Revealed at Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:50:05 +0000