Izzy Gibson
I had no idea who Rod Liddle was prior to last nights events, but perhaps I would have been given the chance to educate myself on his views beforehand if Tim Luckhurst had informed us of a guest speaker being present, as he has done on several other occasions. Those who had found out he was speaking had already planned a walk out at the beginning of his speech to save themselves from his harmful views. Upon their exit, our once very calmly spoken Principal began to scream at them, proclaiming them as “pathetic”. This is not the type of aggression you expect to be an audience of at what was meant to be a jolly Christmas formal. Myself and my peers then sat through what was a very painful, and uncomfortable speech. I don’t quite know what Liddle was trying to get across to us last night, but his speech consisted of a strong anti-left narrative, with sprinkles of sexism, homophobia, classism and transphobia: [TW – “those with an xy chromosome…are scientifically a man”, with a mention of “dangling penis[es]”. His speech was entirely inappropriate. Afterwards, the Principal thanked the speaker and addressed the remaining students with gratitude for staying. I will make it clear, myself and my friends did not stay out of respect of Liddle or interest in his comments, but for most of us, out of fear of the Principal and perhaps another outburst. Several students I spoke to last night were in distress due to Liddle’s comments, with many becoming emotional. Our students well-being should not be put on the line for our Principal who I once thought to be welcoming and progressive, to invite a “good friend” from his previous years, who has a very public controversial past. Luckhurst’s bias towards Liddle was at the detriment of our students welfare. As someone who was a pioneer for South College, and has worked closely with Tim, this has shocked and appalled me. I can securely say, that I am no longer proud of South College as an institution. Instead, I am proud of my peers and the college’s student body for standing up for what they believe in and not putting up with bigotry.
Testimony 4:
I am disgusted and also saddened by the manner in which our principal and his wife conducted themselves at the Christmas formal. The last formal of the academic term in which children were present, in which international students were experiencing their first British Christmas at a time where everyone wanted joy and some college patriotism. This was not the case. To even let Rod Liddle stand and speak with the prior knowledge that this would upset many students, yet this was considered “acceptable” under the codified law of free speech, was (1) not amusing, (2) hypocritical in its very nature. The fact our principal has defended this man in countless articles. Defending his opinions on child pornography and various transphobic ideologies is very telling of situations in which the freedom of speech has been prioritised over other codified human rights laws. Freedom of speech in itself includes the right to listen or not listen to the said speaker, the European Convention on Human Rights protects the rights of assembly and in this case disassembly. The principal has acted in a highly unprofessional highly political manner whilst preaching the right to speech has impeded upon many of his students rights. Southies have been left mentally scarred and some traumatised. This is unacceptable and must be acted upon now.
Testimony 5:
At the South College Christmas formal last night, an event at which we were expecting to experience a heart-warming Christmas dinner, our college President Timothy Luckhurst invited Rod Liddle (an openly racist, homophobic, and transphobic journalist) to give a lecture to the room on his political ideology. Before the formal, some people had seen an article from Rod about child pornography and as he began to speak decided to walk out of the room. In response to this, Tim shouted ‘Pathetic!’ at them, because of their decision not to hear from an individual they knew was about to offend them. The speech opened with a joke about prostitution, was followed by inappropriate comments about ethnic minorities, transphobia in which Liddle tried to argue that science proves trans people not to exist, a claim that is fundamentally wrong, and a comment made about single parents not being capable of raising their children. At this point, more and more people including myself began to leave the room, as the speech was so offensive and uncomfortable, even driving some students to tears. Following the speech, the JCR president of South got up and combatted some of the claims made by Rod, clarifying that these are not views of the JCR and arguing that the Christmas formal was not the correct environment for them to be expressed at, which has since been re-enforced in an email sent to college residents today. Many people had returned to the hall to support the JCR president, and then we all left again. On the way out of the room, Rod and Tim were confronted by students who were appalled by the speech and questioning why the speech had been allowed to be given. In response to this, the college President argued that ‘freedom of speech’ must prevail, however, he did not account for the fact that most of the speech was hate speech, incredibly offensive, and that people had not paid for a Christmas formal to then be lectured on political ideology of the right wing. The President’s wife was labelling student ‘assholes’ and repeated the sentiment that trans people don’t exist. Since then the college has been quite shaken and the elitist and discriminatory reputation that Durham has as a University has been re-enforced.
Statement 1:
“Rod Liddle can speak until his face turns blue, and he will because he is who he is and does what he does, but to inflict that on a group of students who did not willingly sign up for it, were not given a forum to argue back or discuss and were clearly expected to just sit there and put up with it given the ‘pathetic’ comments is ironically deeply anti-free speech and anti-free choice”
Statement 2:
“There is an appropriate and inappropriate way to present an idea. This probably sounds dramatic but say they were going to give a speech on war, they wouldn’t bring in tanks and immerse the students in a war situation, so why should they be able to present ‘tolerance’ like that?”
Conclusions and Suggestions for future action
Following the speech given by Rod Liddle at South College’s Christmas Formal, entailing transphobic remarks, we would like to hold a meeting in which all participants (from university staff, to students), may express their sentiments regarding the treatment of events prior to, during, and following the Formal (03/12/2021). Our aim is to be able to discuss this sensitive issue in a structured setting, allowing all points of view to be recognised and to suggest how we may collectively learn and move forward from this event. Each participant’s opinions may vary, but we want to highlight that our ultimate goal is shared: to interrogate the events of December 3rd and suggest a positive way to move forward from them and prevent further outrage.
The best means to address an issue of such emotion and proportion is through discourse. Through creating a structured environment in which we can all express our sentiments as a college and university community, we can make valuable progress in understanding each other and exploring possible options for future action under a united desire to remedy Friday’s events.
Events similar to the South College Christmas Formal have unfortunately become all too familiar within the Durham University community. We now have a chance to create a sustained and central discourse surrounding the University’s attitudes towards minority groups. Whether Tim Luckhurst and his counterparts will accept the opportunity to respond constructively to Friday’s incident is yet to become apparent. If Luckhurst does not acknowledge the gravity of this situation, I fear that the double standards he has imposed on the South College community will further perpetuate. In the case that the events detailed do not instigate positive discourse in the University community, one must ask themself how dire the suppression of minority groups’ may get before they are finally given the formal platform to execute their own freedom of expression?
