I think we could have guessed that the Cambridge University Conservative Association weren’t going to be happy over this. The manner in which Cambridge University rescinded it’s offer of a Fellowship – a Visting one to be sure – to Jordan Peterson. They’re more than unhappy, they’re truly, in the American sense, pissed.

As, of course, they should be.

The malicious influence of the radical student-left on British campus life is once again exemplified by the University’s decision to undo its offer for Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson to occupy a visiting fellowship at the Faculty of Divinity.

That Peterson’s lifelong career in academia, which has been in force well before he acquired fame, merits such an invitation, is without question. He has held similar positions at other major universities, such as being a post-doctoral fellow at McGill University, teaching at Harvard and has also conducted numerous research papers and studies. The argument that he is no theologian also lacks substance, as it is very common for professional academics to diffuse between differing disciplines, specifically in this instance for Peterson to analyse biblical literature from the perspective of clinical psychology.

A flagrantly vague statement by a university spokesperson cites “inclusivity” as the core reason, asserting that there is “no place here for anyone” who purportedly contradicts this. Make no mistake, this has the linguistics and imprint of the student far-left who have hijacked CUSU and consequently possess immense lobbying capabilities.

For them, Peterson’s outspoken views on bill C-16, feminism and a raft of other contentious issues makes him an irredeemable pariah. In their eyes, anybody daring to think in terms contrarian to their own are not just wrong, but morally defective. In addition to this arrogant ethical pretension, adherents of left-think dangerously view speech as a potential instrument of injustice to be regulated rather than the oxygen that predicates any free society.

Some apologists disingenuously claim that not granting one a platform differs from censoring them. Ignoring the fact that the “platform” in this instance was irrelevant to Peterson’s politics (but the reason for revocation was), would these zealots really be satisfied with a figure like Peterson having any platform at all? They are after all the same crowd who do their utmost to disrupt and sometimes (as seen frequently on American campuses) violently forbid any event anywhere with any individual that doesn’t subscribe to their ideology.

Yet in this framework of totalitarian doublethink, CUSU claims to be acting in representation of the “student-body”. On what authority? The 20% who turn out to elect them? The poll they never held to gauge whether students actually want to hear from Peterson, which given the high attendance at his Union event they most probably would? CUSU’s leadership only listens to (and indeed is amongst) the placard carrying cultists who vandalise ancient buildings and squat in university workplaces. On this occasion it shows and for their role in degenerating free speech on campus they deserve throbbing scorn.

It is a sad day when affairs have regressed so profoundly at such a prestigious institution as ours that University PR-team feel pressurised to enact what is de-facto censorship to appease a megaphone wielding loudmouth minority. The notion that you listen to and engage those with a different view used to be common sense, now it requires defending against authoritarian tendencies exhibited by elements of the extreme-left. Securing the free exchange of contrasting viewpoints at our University is critical to maintaining its status as an intellectual powerhouse. Regardless of partisan affiliation, we must unite and confront censorial militants seeking to create a culture of suppression.