🚨 BREAKING: The Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) has written to Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) on behalf of two senior academics who are refusing to complete mandatory training requiring assent to contested theoretical propositions about “unconscious bias”, potentially jeopardising their career progression and professional opportunities. The dispute concerns an assessment within What is Unconscious Bias? — part of QMUL’s Introducing Inclusion course, which is “mandatory for all staff”. The assessment requires participants to affirm that “unconscious biases help us to react quickly but can cloud our judgement”, and to identify accepting that “we have unconscious biases” as helpful. The accompanying feedback declares that such acceptance is “the first step to combating their negative effects”. Informed by their scholarly research, the academics we’re supporting dispute these propositions and have refused to complete the assessment rather than give answers contrary to their convictions. Under the assessment’s all-or-nothing marking system, refusing to affirm both propositions caps a participant’s score at 60%, below the 80% pass mark. Yet passing is a condition of eligibility for promotion, professorial review, including decisions on remuneration, and participation in recruitment and promotion panels. Although influential in social-justice-oriented scholarship, the concept of unconscious bias is contested within psychology, with researchers disagreeing about what it means, whether the processes in question are necessarily unconscious, and whether they exert a causal influence on judgement. Peer-reviewed research also questions whether acknowledging such biases improves behaviour. QMUL is of course entitled to provide training on its preferred theory of bias. But it remains just that: a theory. When such training is mandatory, requires staff to pass an assessment, and is tied to professional opportunities, there is a clear risk of compelling academics to affirm propositions they simply don’t believe. That’s why we’ve proposed a simple solution: amend the assessment so that academics who don’t all think alike can demonstrate understanding without having to endorse its underlying assumptions. Should QMUL decline to address these concerns, CAF is prepared to fund legal counsel to assist the academics, should they wish, in pursuing an internal grievance and subsequent complaint to the OfS. We believe there are strong grounds for such a complaint, given that such training may breach QMUL’s statutory duties to secure freedom of speech and academic freedom. Consistent with Article 10 protections against compelled expression, the Office for Students has also warned that universities “should not require training or induction that imposes a requirement on the person completing the training actively to endorse any viewpoint or value-judgement”. Sadly, this isn’t an isolated case. As CAF knows from its casework, universities often impose mandatory training in which the distinction between “understanding” and “endorsing” contested ideas becomes blurred. That’s why we hope this intervention marks the beginning of a wider pushback against compelled intellectual conformity on campus. If you’re an academic with similar concerns about mandatory training at your institution, get in touch. CAF can assess your case and, where appropriate, secure specialist legal advice and raise the matter with your university on your behalf. Contact us at manager@afcomm.org.uk Full story via The Telegraph: telegraph.co.uk/gift/1060b26…

West Ham fans, thoughts on Nuno?

Nuno simply must be removed. We won’t get promoted with this comatose fraud in charge. They’re not coached. There’s no plan. The team selections are all over the place. There’s no motivation. He doesn’t speak. Nuno is getting to Potter levels.

He watches Hamas snuff videos The man is sick

Here’s another clip of a woman reading Trump’s words verbatim from a recent rally in Mississippi that puts a giant magnifying glass over how gone he is cognitively and unfit he is for office.

Not a single news outlet has reviewed its coverage of Jason Arday, for accuracy or proportionality. Zero attempt has been made to conduct any inquiry into the media’s role in his death. Instead, the industry has moved into self-congratulatory mode. This isn’t just tone deaf, it betrays a systemic failure

Likely one of the best one liners in Presidential history.

Do people think their bank accounts are safe?

Just read a recommendation letter from the main advisor of a very promising job market candidate that was 100 percent AI generated according to Pangram. Don’t do this!!

Last year I thought Threads was an existential risk to X. When Meta puts its full weight behind something -- by injecting the app into Instagram, it’s DEFCON 5: You have to squeeze out every last drop of growth from all available surfaces to save the app. However, I started to realize that the opposite was happening: It was strengthening X. If you look at any announcement by Zuck, you will see the most rude & toxic comments on the internet. But when he makes those same announcements on X, people are thrilled about how he’s pushing humanity forward. X is a place where people are excited about the future, so it’s no surprise he and his top lieutenants are using it more than their own app. Threads — and Bluesky — have effectively quarantined some of the worst people on the internet. And so I had an epiphany: those apps are X’s anti-abuse systems.

Sally Rooney's books withdrawn from UK sale over her support for Palestine Action; this seems to be a basic infringement of freedom of speech/artistic freedom?!? rte.ie/entertainment/2026/10…