[afavour]

> gives me a strong hint about the kind of person it's being talked about.

There was no person being talked about, though. This is a discussion about Oxford's university ranking. The GP brought up a person entirely irrelevant to that discussion and informed us of his views on a topic that's also irrelevant to the discussion.

[cvwright]

How are the grades of a student in a prestigious position at Oxford not relevant to the academic reputation of Oxford?

[afavour]

My objection was not the student in question being mentioned. It was why he was mentioned: his views on Charlie Kirk, a US culture war topic that has nothing to do with the discussion and nothing to do with the student’s admission grades.

[mensetmanusman]

Oxfords name is currently being trashed globally because of this though. It sucks, but it must be dealt with. Celebrating violence against free speech doesn’t make sense for Oxford’s name to stand behind.

[afavour]

> Oxfords name is currently being trashed globally because of this though

Entirely depends on what circles you move in. The vast majority of people, especially those outside the US, are not talking about Charlie Kirk at all. Hence my objection to him being brought up. At bare minimum it has no relevance to the ranking being discussed in this topic.

> Celebrating violence against free speech doesn’t make sense for Oxford’s name to stand behind.

And they do not stand behind it. Oxford does not control the students union. I don’t buy any argument that they should somehow be policing free speech in the name of free speech. Makes no sense at all.

[mensetmanusman]

Supporting violence against free speech advocates is anti free speech.