Eton teacher is sacked for video presenting a non-feminist perspective on masculinity

One eyed Jack wrote: »

. I won’t say epic proportions, but it’s almost as though he’s trying too hard to present a caricature of masculinity, by presenting all the incel talking points.

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

OP, on the first page of this forum you have started threads with the following titles:

• Citizens' Assembly on gender equality only going to focus on helping women, it seems
• Rank Irish political parties on their willingness to discriminate against men/similar
• Eton teacher is sacked for questioning radical feminist dogma on 'toxic masculinity'

With all due respect you're coming across as someone with a bit of a chip on their shoulder. I don't know you, so it won't make any difference to me one way or the other, but for the sake of your own mental health it might be better not to dwell on these topics or consume the media that specialise in pumping it out - reading The Federalist, The Daily Mail and The Daily Express definitely won't do you any good as they are hate merchants whose business model is making their readers as angry as possible to keep them coming back for more.

iptba wrote: »

I am not sure whether you would talk to someone whose views you agreed with like this and whether this is an ad hominem and/or an attempt to shame me into silence? I do have a bit of a chip on my shoulder but then lots of people have all sorts of chips on their shoulders about all sorts of things. People join political parties, are involved with different movements, have strong feelings on topics they express on boards, etc.

With regard to those publications, I honestly don’t read them regularly: I get email updates to the Irish Examiner, Irish Independent and Irish Times and look in on some of the articles. Those are the sources I mostly post on. Since Covid started I have started looking at the RTÉ website for the daily figures so read that a bit too. In this case, I just saw the article mentioned on Twitter and then Googled it so as not to just quote a Daily Mail article. I don’t even know what the philosophy of the Federalist is, I haven’t come across it much.

If there are topics like this you or others don’t find of interest, don’t read them. There are a huge number of topics discussed on boards and there’s no requirement to read threads on them all.

Letter from Boys to Provost about Mr Knowland

Target:
Provost of Eton College

Region:
United Kingdom

Mr Knowland's dismissal will be appealed on the 8th of December by the Provost and Fellows. Attached is a letter from the Boys to the Provost asking for Mr Knowland's reinstatement.

Sign this petition if you support the right to free expression at Eton, and would like to see Mr Knowland reinstated.

All members of Eton community may sign if they wish, including OEs.

You only have to enter your name and email.

If you are unable to sign the petition, switch to mobile data instead of WiFi.
If you cannot sign from your mobile, please use your computer.

A Letter from the Boys to the Provost and Fellows, asking for Mr Knowland’s reinstatement.

Dear Lord Waldegrave,

The dismissal of Mr Knowland raises a number of concerns for the boys. We perceive in his dismissal some very grave implications about the nature of freedom in this school, and the moral stature of those in charge.

So that you are able to factor these concerns into your judgement of Mr Knowland’s appeal on the 8th, they are particularised in this letter.

The common opinion of the boys is that Mr Knowland presented the ideas in his video with as much academic nuance and sensitivity as could ever be reasonably expected. He makes at least 41 academic citations. His video is arguably a model for how to convey a contentious argument impeccably. We struggle to identify where Mr Knowland’s video steps out of the realms of academic debate and into genuinely discriminatory private opinion. The boys have concluded from watching the video that the problem cannot lie in the way he sets out the ideas, but in the ideas themselves. This dangerous conclusion must not be confirmed by a judgement against Mr Knowland.

Second, the boys perceive a hypocrisy on the part of the school about its role in the protection of minorities. Mr Knowland is being dismissed for having a different view to the view of the majority. His view is not very uncommon or exceptional. It is simply different. Mr Knowland’s dismissal presents as a gross abuse of the duty of the school to protect the freedoms of the individual, especially where those freedoms run up against the norms held by the majority. We feel morally bound not to be bystanders in what appears to be an instance of institutional bullying.
Why has the school not extended the protection to Mr Knowland that we hope it would to any boy who voiced a similar idea, be it on religious or secular grounds?
Are the boys also bound by the same restrictions to expression? Should boys who express the same idea as Mr Knowland expect to be similarly dealt with? Is there a difference if this idea is voiced privately, or, as with Mr Knowland, in an academic context?

Third, in a meeting on the 24th of November, the Head Master explained the test that he applies to determine what kinds of ideas are illegal. For him, anything that can be deemed ‘hostile’ by any single member of one of the school’s designated minority groups will be censored. We think this test is too severe. Young men and their views are formed in the meeting and conflict of ideas. A conflict of ideas necessarily entails controversy and spirited discussion. The Head Master’s ‘hostility’ test excludes nearly all of what makes up a liberal education.
How can the school reasonably expect teachers to engage in the promotion of free thought inside and outside of the schoolroom when the consequence of overstepping some poorly-defined line of acceptability is to lose their livelihood and home? Is this not an abuse of power?

Fourth, in a previous meeting with Pop, the Head Master stated his view that female teachers would be in some way ‘compromised’ by having to discuss the video in class. This appeared to be the Head Master’s principal objection to the video. Does this not patronise female staff? The undersigned believe that women are no less equipped than a man to contend for or against the video’s arguments.

Fifth, the school now prides itself on being a more compassionate place. This is justified; any B Blocker’s experience will confirm that the school is more tolerant and understanding than when they first arrived, no doubt as a result of your efforts. However, the dismissal of Mr Knowland – at least on the facts available to the boys – points to a heartless and merciless spirit at the top of the school. Mr Knowland is loved by all who have encountered him. He is an obviously and thoroughly good man. We know he has many children, one of whom is disabled. We are struggling to reconcile the school’s opinion of itself as tolerant or compassionate with this instance of cruelty. Mr Knowland’s dismissal truly seems cruel.

There is a sense that, by dismissing Mr Knowland, the school is seeking to protect its new image as politically progressive at the expense of one of its own. If this is true, it points to a complete lack of moral integrity and backbone.

Sixth, it is not really the concern of the boys to what extent the teachers can feel secure in the school, or be confident in the support of their Leadership Team. However, the dismissal of Mr Knowland sets a precedent that we would imagine the teachers are apprehending with some deal of mistrust and fear. Teachers have privately articulated to many boys their inability to speak up about this and other issues for fear of being dealt with in the same way as Mr Knowland. Is the school content that this is a healthy environment?

Seventh, in the meeting on the 24th of November, the Head Master admitted that Mr Knowland’s video was in fact “not the real problem”, and was not the ultimate reason for his dismissal. The Head Master said that Mr Knowland was dismissed for some action subsequent to the video which could not be disclosed to the boys. In the Head Master’s words: for “what happened after the video”. It has been made clear that this subsequent action was Mr Knowland’s refusal to take down the video from his private YouTube page. We urge the Provost and Fellows to recognise that the rightness or wrongness of Mr Knowland’s refusal to take down the video still consists in the rightness or wrongness of the video itself. If, as the Head Master accepts, the video is “not the real problem”, we struggle to understand where Mr Knowland has done wrong. In sum, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing in the video nor in the declining to remove it at the result of a capricious request.
Moreover, we believe the Head Master should not expect absolute obedience from his staff. They are not children. It is unsurprising that the Head Master has had to resort to punishment and threats to enforce such a style of government.

Those who have signed below do not necessarily support the ideas presented in Mr Knowland’s video. We all, however, support his freedom to express them.

We urge the Provost and Fellows to rule in favour of freedom of thought and expression. We hope that you will rule compassionately, and that you reinstate Mr Knowland.

Yours sincerely,

The undersigned

"In addition to this, he was asked over Lockdown to prepare a lecture for a course called “C Perspectives”. Perspectives is aimed entirely at boys in their second-to-last year and intended to encourage intellectual development by exposing us to as wide a variety of different ideas as possible. My year’s course included speakers advocating the criminalisation of abortion, making the case for the moral propriety of the British Empire, and harshly criticising the American government for their historical aggression in foreign affairs. To this end, Mr Knowland wrote a lecture about the “Patriarchy Paradox”, the essential claims of which are simple and non-controversial: first, that there exist genetic differences between men and women which manifest themselves in average differences in interest and personality; second, that not all women would agree that the world would be better off without men in it; and third, that psychologists don’t all agree that these differences are socially constructed."

I believe it was meant to give one side of the argument and another teacher was preparing a lecture to give the other side. I.e two different perspectives for the Perspectives Course

Knowland Knows

Thanks for your comment. My brief was to fill 35 minutes and provide as many debate-starting talking points as possible by airing viewpoints not commonly discussed on the topic. I suppose the short version would be 1) biological differences are real (physical and psychological), 2) they make men better suited to the protector role (although it is not exclusively masculine) and 3) the traditional masculine virtues are rooted in this. To what extent this is flexible or desirable in the future is, you rightly point out, an important discussion to have, e.g., would it be right to conscript women into frontline combat roles in WW3?

Will Knowland: Eton governors back teacher’s sacking
DECEMBER 15, 2020

The decision to sack an Eton College tutor embroiled in a free speech row has been upheld on appeal.