Universally of Salford: In the interest of Fairness

Friday 28 January 2011

In the interest of Fairness

Professor Hall has responded to some of the criticisms made of his Kafkaesque blog entry with the following tract of rebuttals:

"Eric states that the right to anonymity does not assume the right to defame. This is my point, which Howard misses by eliding personalised abuse with the right to challenge institutional authority. Decisions on the interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act are made by the Information Commissioner, and not on the interpretation of email comments. Decisions on the boundary between, on the one hand, hate speech, defamation and harassment and, on the other, legitimate public interest are made ultimately by the courts; one of the reasons why this issue needs to be opened up for discussion is so that generally accepted codes of practice can be developed that avoid litigation. I did not criticise the protection of sources by journalists, which is fundamental to press freedom. “Dodgy journalism” here referred to deliberate misrepresentation and abandonment of basic codes of professional practice; since Barry is a lecturer at two universities, he should know such codes of professional practice well. J. Smith casts me as a “benevolent dictator” intent on closing down freedom of speech. It is widely accepted that hate speech, bullying and intimidation close down the public sphere that is essential for freedom of speech; again, my point."

No comments:

Post a Comment

What is 'Universally of Salford'?

The openness of any social structure can be validated by how it treats criticism. A democracy would never be described as open or liberal if it failed to encourage a climate in which criticism and opposition to the ideas of an executive body can flourish. A University is no different.

During our experiences with the University of Salford, there has never been an effective outlet for the sort of objections to executive policies and decisions raised in this blog. Almost every attempt we have ever made to investigate any controversial decisions, activities, spending or events has been met with threats, derision and concealment.

The Students' Union – the obvious forum in which to raise these issues – remains silent owing to virtually the entirety of its funding being conditional upon donations from the University.

It is our opinion that the University of Salford can never improve if it, as an institution, cannot distinguish between good and bad decision making. Achieving this is conditional upon both the student and staff bodies being kept informed about both the good and bad within the University.

Since the University have a monopoly over their internal publications (including, we would argue, the Student Newspaper), and since this 'monopolised' publicity is almost without exception propagandist, it is our opinion that a purely critical alternative ought be available to staff and students to balance out this inequity and assist in keeping both parties informed.