Edinburgh University must break its silence over ‘cancelling’ of David Hume
There has been an avalanche of criticism over the decision of the University of Edinburgh to erase the name of David Hume from one of the university’s buildings (Scotsman, 14 September), which makes the silence of the Principal and the administration all the more surprising.
The inability, or unwillingness, of those who support the “cancel culture” to break cover and actually put up an argument has been a feature of the wider debate.
The defenders of an idea of culture in history articulate a point of view, admitting inadequacies, nuances and downright moral failures where necessary, whereas the advocates of de -naming, hauling down, cancelling shout on the social media, or gather empty signatures, but fail to pro - duce a coherent argument in defence of their point of view or course of action.
That cannot be the policy of an institution of the prestige of the University of Edinburgh. They must have reasoned their way to their decision, as thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment would have done. So why this public silence? They have been derided worldwide for this decision, so surely it is time for them to set out their reasoning, justify their policies and confound the critics.
It is surely not the case that they panicked when they saw that 1,700 signatures had been gathered to erase Hume’s name. That is hardly a mass movement, and leaves open the possibility that if opponents of this move gather 1,701 signatures they will rescind the decision, will they not? Live by numbers, die by numbers, if that is all there is to it. We await a statement in explanation and justification from the university. (PROFESSOR EMERITUS)
JOSEPH FARRELL Endfield Avenue, Glasgow
The has ty decision by Edinburgh University to rename the David Hume Tower on the grounds that the philosopher was racist was the latest step by institutions across the world distancing themselves from the behaviour and attitudes of previous generations.
Imagine statues being erected today to individuals who lead or em body the st ruggle against racism, misogyny or homophobia. Many of us would support and few of us would object to such monuments. Then imagine 200 years from now, protestors demanding that these statues be torn down because those same individuals drove cars that use petrol, flew on planes for holidays, ate meat and food that was imported from thousands of miles away, had three or more children. All these actions contribute to the degradation of the planet and are likely to be seen as heinous crimes by our descendants. Will be right to honour our heroes while our descendants despise them?
Before we rush to condemn the past for not living up to our standards, we should remember that we will be condemned by the future for not living up to theirs.
MARTIN FOREMAN Craigend Park, Edinburgh