Oxford University Criticised For Having Too Many 'dead White Males' On Its Walls.

[anotheoldgit]

/// Two years ago, they demanded Oriel College tear down a statue of the 19th Century imperialist Cecil Rhodes over claims it was offensive to ethnic minority students. ///

And now this:

/// But they said the 20 new portraits would be added to the collection so that more women, people from ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians and people with disabilities could be included. ///

Is the continuing quest at addressing more and more diversity issues, is it now getting all too silly?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Not silly- philistine.

http://freebeacon.com/culture/penn-students-take-shakespeare-portrait-replace-photo-lesbian-poet/

[naomi24]

I've just said on another thread that intelligence doesn't always equate to sense. Clearly it doesn't.

[andy-hughes]

I think this is going too far.

If a portrait is added because the subject is worthy of remembrance, than that is fine, that's the idea - but to include someone simply because of race, sexuality or disability is to demean the individual and reduce them to a PC stereotype, which surely flies in the face of their remembered achievements.

[Peter Pedant]

// I've just said on another thread that intelligence doesn't always equate to sense. Clearly it doesn't.//

jesus you just have to read the average AB thread to work that universal truth out

[RandyMarsh]

Jesus, adding paintings?

The world has gone mad.

[Prudie]

Gawd I'd have thought gays, lesbians and those with disabilities etc would only want their picture up if they deserved it. Their personal description should be irrelevant.

[andy-hughes]

I'm all for artwork, and I'm all for people of note being remembered, and if these pictures combine the two then that's great.

But as I have said - adding pictures because of something the person has no control over - ethnicity, disability, orientation, whatever - is simply ticking PC boxes, and demeaning the individual, and the pictures of those around them.

[anotheoldgit]

/// you just have to read the average AB thread to work that universal truth out ///

So this is what the 'vastly intelligent' Peter Pedant thinks of his average fellow ABer.

[douglas9401]

Students eh? Not as black as they're painted I'll bet. :)

[-Talbot-]

But they said the 20 new portraits would be added to the collection so that more women, people from ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians and people with disabilities could be included


Disgusting ... what about morbidly obese people, what about bald people, what about ginger people, what about deaf or blind people, what about dwarfs ... sorry little persons.

They have not gone far enough imo.

[-Talbot-]

I know many of the above are disabilities but we need specific disabilities highlighted ... or else you are just lumped in with the rest.

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - // ... what about bald people ... //

I prefer the term 'follicly challenged'.

Thank you.

[jim360]

Well, it's Oxford, what else would you expect?

I'd always assumed that the main point of people moaning about this is that it shouldn't matter who are up on the walls, in which case it's always odd that any attempt to add diversity to the paintings is met with cries of anguish.

And another thing -- a fair number of the portraits are anyway of people whose main claim to fame is that they (a) went to the college and/or (b) gave a lot of money to it at some point. I doubt most people will have heard of most of the men in the portraits at King's, for example (or any other college for that matter). There was one of Walsingham, chief spy to Elizabeth 1st, and another of Robert Walpole, but most of the others I'd never heard of. Old provosts but that was about it.

So what I'm saying is that it's not obvious to me why you'd think that the portraits that are already there deserve to stay there enough for it to be so outrageous to suggest adding new ones that reflect the more modern diversity of the college.

Having said that, I think the problem is that reflecting heritage is often confused with celebrating it. That there are so many dead white men on the walls is because that's just how things were back then. I'm not sure it should be seen as offensive, but it shouldn't be so important to people to keep things that way either.

[Samjenko]

'adding new ones that reflect the more modern diversity of the college.'

Let me just stop you there, Jim.

[emmie]

would they prefer live white ones, bizarre.

[-Talbot-]

That there are so many dead white men on the walls is because that's just how things were back then.


Exactly. Just add a woman (gay or not) or an ethnic or someone with a disability to the walls (assuming they don't just stick someone like Ainsley Harriott or Warwick Davis on the wall for the sake of meeting their new criteria) and shut up about people from the past.

[jim360]

Well, anyway wouldn't it be nice to have portraits of more modern people? And, by extension, such portraits should naturally be of a more diverse set of people.

I agree that it's not something to force. I just think that it should end up happening anyway.

[jno]

the "portrait of Shakespeare" could be of anyone at all; nobody knows. An authentic portrait of someone would seem to make much more sense - for those who care deeply about portraits, as everyone on this thread seems to.

[anotheoldgit]

-Talbot-

/// what about dwarfs ... sorry little persons. ///

Or person of short stature.

[anotheoldgit]

Is there the right amount of diversity shown in their boat crew?