PoO was occasioned to check out the meaning of bullying today on reading of an academic who feared being bullied by the Free Speech Union,
We suspect the academic in question (unnamed) has confused bullying with debate.
But maybe we are wrong.
The academic popped into considerations in a report in Newsroom which examines the history of the Free Speech Union, its funding and the influence it is wielding.
The report mentions the union’s critics, who say
… its veneer of reasonableness hides a darker mission of knocking institutions, sowing the seeds of racial division, and importing culture wars on issues like transgender rights.
And:
Newsroom approached several academics for comment on this story, one of whom declined, adding: “I’d rather not become a target of an FSU bullying campaign.”
PoO found an Australian Human Rights Commission definition which says bullying
… is when people repeatedly and intentionally use words or actions against someone or a group of people to cause distress and risk to their wellbeing. These actions are usually done by people who have more influence or power over someone else, or who want to make someone else feel less powerful or helpless.
Bullying is not the same as conflict between people (like having a fight) or disliking someone, even though people might bully each other because of conflict or dislike.
This website said the sort of repeated behaviour that can be considered bullying includes:
The report mentions the union’s critics, who say
… its veneer of reasonableness hides a darker mission of knocking institutions, sowing the seeds of racial division, and importing culture wars on issues like transgender rights.
And:
Newsroom approached several academics for comment on this story, one of whom declined, adding: “I’d rather not become a target of an FSU bullying campaign.”
PoO found an Australian Human Rights Commission definition which says bullying
… is when people repeatedly and intentionally use words or actions against someone or a group of people to cause distress and risk to their wellbeing. These actions are usually done by people who have more influence or power over someone else, or who want to make someone else feel less powerful or helpless.
Bullying is not the same as conflict between people (like having a fight) or disliking someone, even though people might bully each other because of conflict or dislike.
This website said the sort of repeated behaviour that can be considered bullying includes:
- Keeping someone out of a group (online or offline)
Bullying further includes
- Acting in an unpleasant way near or towards someone
- Giving nasty looks, making rude gestures, calling names, being rude and impolite, and constantly negative teasing.
- Spreading rumours or lies, or misrepresenting someone (i.e. using their Facebook account to post messages as if it were them)
- Mucking about that goes too far
- Harassing someone based on their race, sex, religion, gender or a disability
- Intentionally and repeatedly hurting someone physically
- Intentionally stalking someone
- Taking advantage of any power over someone else like a Prefect or a Student Representative.
His work involves him in researching culture-centred approaches in health and post-colonialism, including global threats to academic freedom – and:
Dutta has written a series of pieces attacking the far-right and university cancel culture, including a pointed piece, last year, on the Free Speech Union.
PoO notes the drawing of this distinction between freedom of speech and academic freedom:
Dutta tells Newsroom the Free Speech Union seeks to project a crisis of free speech at New Zealand universities through surveys with flawed design and sampling, underpinned by a deliberate conflation of academic freedom and freedom of expression…
…
On academic freedom, Dutta explains: “If I’m not an expert in kaupapa Māori, I don’t have the academic freedom to deliberate on, and pontificate on kaupapa Māori. Sure I have that as my freedom of speech but that’s not my academic freedom, and I think that delineation is obfuscated.”
Readers of this blog are reminded of our report two years ago on the Dutta v du Fresne debate.
We had learned from du Fresne’s blog that more than three weeks after he challenged Professor Dutta to a debate, there had been no response.
In the meantime, the professor had locked his Twitter account after du Fresne urged readers of his blog to check it out.
PoO checked with du Fresne this morning.
The news was that no, Dutta had still not responded to the invitation.
It may well be he wants to avoid the prospect of giving or being given nasty looks, making or being subjected to rude gestures, calling or being called names … etc.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment