Why teach Hume if he has been ‘cancelled’?

Edinburgh Universtity Principal Peter Mathieson's most recent statement on the decision to remove David Hume's name from Tower previously named in his honour does little to clarify matter and even less to justify it.

Before attempting to join the increasingly futile and fractious debate let me make it clear to that I am not a person of colour. Does that now disqualify me, as the statement on the 'lived experience' of those who may have signed letters of protest, seems to suggest?

The Principal has seemingly moved far from a principle of equality of gender and race, and has moved into the currently hashionable “cancel culture” camp. We are still in the world of Animal Farm, where all are equal but some are more equal than others.

At some stage the Principal will require the indulgence he has refused to allow David Hume, that is, the acknowledgement that his craven part in this sorry affair is not representative of his life's work, that there is more to him that one act of his, or one piece of writing of Hume's, however reprehensible.

Let it be repeated that Hume ought not to have written the words objected to, but do es that make it reasonable to blacklist a man held in respect throughout the world?

There are other questions still to be addressed. The university has stated that it has shown its recognition of Hume by appointing two lecturer s whose specialism is the study of Hume's philosophy. Why? How can they permit the minds of their young charges to be polluted by exposure to the thought of a man from whom they have publicly dissociated themselves? Is the use of his name above a door dangerous while his actual philosophy remains valuable?

We do not know how numerous were those who were illat-ease in entering a building named after Hume, but it would be good to know why the university did not engage them and others in a public debate, a move which would have been in keeping with the now threatened status of the university as a forum for informed research and discussion. Far from trivialising anyone's lived experience, such a move would have had identifiable, educational benefits, such as putting Hume's view of race and slavery in the context of his times and in the context of his overall thought.

By the way, how long is 'temporary ?' What is going to change meantime? What steps is the university taking to decide whether the' temporary' renaming is made permanent? Who is involved? PROF JOSEPH FARRELL Endfield Avenue, Glasgow