First and foremost, I'd like to thank you all for a fascinating lecture. I have thought this to be a subject worthy of serious study for a long time so I'm delighted to see it getting some attention in academia. @10:28 you speak about "opening the debate in the academic community about what to do with the scholars from these countries," which I'm quite unpleasantly surprised to even hear as a proposed discussion of debate in a Western liberal democracy. Banning a country from participating in a contest like Eurovision makes sense because that country as a nation-state is the real "competitor," they are simply being represented by a completely replaceable individual and as such the individual isn't the one being targeted by that action. A good (and very recent) example of that in action, is the fact that absolutely no one called for Luxembourg's candidate to be banned from Eurovision, despite the fact that she is also Israeli - the only calls made, even from the most anti-Israel voices among us, were to not allow the country of Israel to compete in the contest. That makes good sense, and makes an important distinction between the individual and the group to which they happen to belong (by no "fault" of their own...). However, the debate that you are proposing, one that would involve discussion of banning individuals because of their citizenship, in academia as you've alluded to, or in any situation in which those individuals are not primarily representatives of that government, is simply wrong. If one accepts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, justifying such bans would require ethical and mental gymnastics that border on the absurd, and the normalisation of this sort of discourse is a deeply troubling sign for our civilisation, the survival of our values, and thus our own integrity. I, of course, do not mean to imply that individuals should not ever be banned in such situations - they most certainly can and should be if they are personally guilty or support war crimes. But a blanket ban on people of a given nationality should never even be on the table as an option, otherwise we will end up heading down the long path of becoming like those tyrants from whom we wish to distance ourselves. Righteous anger can lose its righteousness a lot more quickly than we like to acknowledge when caught up in the emotions of the moment. History has shown us that time and time again, and it worries me to see signs of that again.
First and foremost, I'd like to thank you all for a fascinating lecture. I have thought this to be a subject worthy of serious study for a long time so I'm delighted to see it getting some attention in academia.
@10:28 you speak about "opening the debate in the academic community about what to do with the scholars from these countries," which I'm quite unpleasantly surprised to even hear as a proposed discussion of debate in a Western liberal democracy.
Banning a country from participating in a contest like Eurovision makes sense because that country as a nation-state is the real "competitor," they are simply being represented by a completely replaceable individual and as such the individual isn't the one being targeted by that action. A good (and very recent) example of that in action, is the fact that absolutely no one called for Luxembourg's candidate to be banned from Eurovision, despite the fact that she is also Israeli - the only calls made, even from the most anti-Israel voices among us, were to not allow the country of Israel to compete in the contest. That makes good sense, and makes an important distinction between the individual and the group to which they happen to belong (by no "fault" of their own...).
However, the debate that you are proposing, one that would involve discussion of banning individuals because of their citizenship, in academia as you've alluded to, or in any situation in which those individuals are not primarily representatives of that government, is simply wrong. If one accepts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, justifying such bans would require ethical and mental gymnastics that border on the absurd, and the normalisation of this sort of discourse is a deeply troubling sign for our civilisation, the survival of our values, and thus our own integrity.
I, of course, do not mean to imply that individuals should not ever be banned in such situations - they most certainly can and should be if they are personally guilty or support war crimes. But a blanket ban on people of a given nationality should never even be on the table as an option, otherwise we will end up heading down the long path of becoming like those tyrants from whom we wish to distance ourselves. Righteous anger can lose its righteousness a lot more quickly than we like to acknowledge when caught up in the emotions of the moment. History has shown us that time and time again, and it worries me to see signs of that again.
Congratulations on a very successful event.
Eurovision 24. Anything but music. It’s commercial for trans ax. Bunch of nonsense. Sadly. No music here.