When Sir Tim Hunt made weak jokes about how ‘girls’ are a distraction in laboratories just three people tweeted shock-horror, and the storm began

We used to meet in the cloisters of University College London, by the glass case containing an effigy of the great 19th-century reformer Jeremy Bentham — famous for his radical views on women’s equality and the abolition of slavery, among many other things.

Jonathan Dimbleby and I were fellow students who met in 1967, married in 1968 and graduated in 1969 — and each of us was honoured (many years later) to be appointed a Fellow of our great university.

A few days ago, I found myself brooding that the intellectually honourable response to the hounding out from UCL of Sir Tim Hunt for allegedly sexist remarks was to tell UCL where to put the Fellowship of which I was once so proud. Then I read that my ex-husband had just done that very thing. His difficult decision is one I whole-heartedly applaud.

People may wonder why this issue has attracted so much attention. After all, a speech made by an eminent scientist — a Nobel Prize-winner, no less — to a small group of journalists in South Korea in a previous age would have received no attention at all.

But after the 72-year-old Prof’s weak jokes about how ‘girls’ are a distraction in laboratories — which made some listeners titter and others roll their eyes — just three people tweeted shock-horror, and the storm began.

Sir Tim quickly found his career and reputation, built up over 50 years, all but ruined. Although he apologised for his error, he was still unceremoniously hounded out of honorary positions at UCL, the Royal Society and the European Research Council.

That response was, in my view, hasty and disgraceful —and out of all proportion to his alleged ‘crime’.

Couple: Jonathan Dimbleby and I were fellow students who met in 1967, married in 1968 and graduated in 1969 — and each of us was honoured (many years later) to be appointed a Fellow of our great university

And the controversy rumbles on. One academic, Nassim Taleb, a professor of engineering at New York University, has now called for a boycott of UCL.

He has declined an invitation to speak at an event at the university, saying yesterday: ‘I am boycotting UCL and invite anyone who has respect for freedom of expression, disdain for hypocrisy. . . and feels that intellectual life should not fall prey to Soviet-style arbitrary bureaucrats, to do so.’

Like all the Fellows, I have received a letter from the Provost, Professor Michael Arthur, defending the College’s position.

His remarks read like robo-speak: ‘Equality, diversity and the greatest good for the greatest number are enshrined in our Benthamite origins.

‘Those values hold true to this day, and we constantly try to live up to them . . . Sir Tim has apologised for his remarks, and in no way do they diminish his reputation as a scientist.

‘However, they do contradict the basic values of UCL — even if meant to be taken lightly — and because of that I believe we were right to accept his resignation. Our commitment to gender equality and our support for women in science was and is the ultimate concern.’

As one who has been a lifelong advocate of ‘gender equality’, I want to make it plain that I viewed Professor Hunt’s remarks as harmless — and not ‘appalling, indefensible and unacceptable’, as they have been called.

As a mother, I always quipped that I wanted my son to go to a mixed school because the girls would civilise him, but my daughter to attend a single-sex school so she wouldn’t be distracted by boys. What trouble that would get me into nowadays!

All proportion and common sense have been blown out of the window by the hot air of easily-taken ‘offence’ and the politically correct bellows of feminist outrage.

My university: In April this year, the UCL students’ union came under fire for backing ‘anti-racism’ events which, shockingly, ban white people and men from attending

These people seem incapable of drawing distinctions between the things that matter (female genital mutilation, for example) and things that don’t (Sir Tim’s jokey remarks). Anti-intellectualism holds sway, and language and truth are the victims.

Something has gone very wrong within our universities. Notice that word ‘honourable’ — used by the UCL Provost. I regret to suggest that the word should be bounced straight back at my beloved alma mater. Because if Sir Tim Hunt’s trivial comments offend ‘equality, diversity and the greatest good for the greatest number’ (to quote the Provost), then how are we to judge the tolerance of extreme Islamic views on the UCL campus?

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (pictured), the 2009 Christmas Day underwear bomber, had been the Islamic Society president at UCL

For example, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 2009 Christmas Day underwear bomber who tried to blow up a plane over the Atlantic, had been the Islamic Society president at UCL.

When the college set up an inquiry to examine Abdulmutallab’s presence at UCL, they actually included one Muhammad Abdul Bari on the panel of experts.

In 2006, while Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, Bari offered the East London Mosque as a platform to a man named Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, who has since been sentenced to imprisonment until death in Bangladesh for his involvement in acts of genocide during the 1971 War of Independence.

Abdul Bari has also defended the East London Mosque’s decision to host an event with an Al-Qaeda leader.

Incidentally, at the time of Abdulmutallab’s presidency of the Islamic society, Muslim students at UCL tried to win a change to the students’ union’s constitution, which would have watered down rules on anti-Semitism. Such pushing at the boundaries of tolerance goes on continuously within our higher education establishments — and I would like the UCL Provost to write and let me know his views on ‘equality and diversity’ within the increasingly radical Islamic student population.

The equality group Student Rights, which monitors preaching by extremists and discrimination through segregation at student events, says separate seating for males and females has become a widespread trend at many British universities.

Their figures show there were 233 events ‘of concern’ promoted to students via social media in 2013, of which 23 were cancelled. Research has found that radical preachers spoke at 180 events at universities, including Cardiff and UCL, between March 2012 and March 2013 alone.

Segregated seating for men and women was promoted or implied at more than a quarter of these events.

Like all the Fellows, I have received a letter from the Provost, Professor Michael Arthur (above), defending the College’s position

In April this year, meanwhile, the UCL students’ union came under fire for backing ‘anti-racism’ events which, shockingly, ban white people and men from attending.

Students’ union officers (all women) offered this clumsy justification: ‘The reality is it is not possible to have the discussions that need to be had with your oppressors in the room — even if they are not saying anything.’

That sounds to me like sponsoring a version of apartheid — and it would, of course, sit very well with the Islamic hardliners who constitute a much, much more serious threat to ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ than the light-hearted words of an elderly professor.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute. Freedom of expression, no matter how noble an aim, must be subject to the rule of law and also to shifts in public opinion and even good taste.

Some people may look askance at off-colour jokes, but to crack down on them would require policing every wedding (oh, those risque, sexist best men) and comedy club in the land. Everyday sexism does matter and all of us need to think before we speak, in our personal as well as our professional lives.

But we do not need Thought Police. We should not tolerate death by Twitter — or hysterical prejudice masquerading as concerns over sexism.

The fact that the bland statement from UCL that their position on Sir Tim Hunt will remain the same — open to no discussion, sense of proportion or respect for a man’s distinguished achievements — is a disgrace.