Half of our universities sell their active agenda to students

More than half of Britain’s universities are peddling controversial and radical ‘awakened’ ideologies against students, a damning ranking has revealed.

Critics said last night some of the country’s most prestigious institutions are “poisoning the minds of generations to come” by issuing “trigger warnings” and “white privilege” guidance to students and academics.

Elite Russell Group universities dominate the chart, occupying eight of the top ten spots. Cambridge and Oxford are first and second after introducing “unconscious bias” and racial workshops for freshmen, followed by the University of Bristol, which has banned words like “humanity” to cause offense.

The University of Chester warned students who read the Harry Potter books, claiming that they “can lead to difficult conversations about gender, race, sexuality, class and identity

The results have been called “disturbing” by free speech activists and MPs, who say a “dark shadow” of political correctness has now fallen over our most desirable universities.

The one from Dr. Richard Norrie, a researcher at think tank Civitas, lists 137 universities after searching websites, national and local media and promotional materials for examples of “campus wokery”.

A staggering 62 percent were found to have trigger warning notices or “content notices” aimed at alerting students to material deemed potentially harmful or of concern. 79 institutions mentioned “white privilege” in staff and student guidelines or on their website, while 59 percent offered online training materials or resources on “anti-racism.”

Sir John Hayes MP, leader of the Common Sense Group of Tories and former Secretary of State for Further Education, said universities were wasting resources on “bright nonsense”. “Universities should be places of light and freedom of learning, but too much dark shadow has fallen on higher education,” he told the Mail.

Aberdeen University issued a trigger warning for Peter Pan because it could be “emotionally challenging”.

“Bright nonsense has replaced science, and too many universities not only waste resources but risk poisoning the minds of generations to come. The report is disturbing.”

The study found that Britain’s elite universities are almost twice as likely to promote “radical” and “controversial” concepts than lesser-known institutions, which Dr. Norrie called it “a new moralism that stinks of hypocrisy,” especially since many were happily accepting Chinese money.

The analysis comes amid a surge in “campus work.” Alarming examples are:

• Aberdeen University, which issued a trigger warning for Peter Pan because it could be “emotionally challenging”;
• The University of Chester warned students who read the Harry Potter books, claiming they “can lead to difficult conversations about gender, race, sexuality, class and identity”;
• Imperial College London encouraged its students and staff to have “hard talks” with friends and family who deny white privilege;
• The University of Warwick has now banned the term ‘trigger warning’, claiming it could anger students.

Bosses at the University of Glasgow also warned archeology students that their course could include examining bones and viewing a preserved “bog body”.

The phrase “white privilege” describes the inherent advantages that a white person possesses because of their race.

Glasgow University bosses also warned archeology students that their course could include examining bones and viewing a preserved “bog body”.

“Unconscious bias” occurs when learned stereotypes about race, sex, or gender are made without conscious awareness.

The analysis also found that 84 percent of universities have significant ties to China. Cambridge, dubbed the country’s “weakest” university by the study, has received £73million in donations and research grants over five years from Chinese sources, including controversial telecoms company Huawei, according to the report.

A Russell Group spokesman said: “Our universities are places where freedom of expression and the expression of all ideas and viewpoints are encouraged and protected. Nothing in this report, based on flawed assumptions, suggests that this is not the case.’