I work on sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English literature,
with a particular focus on the works of Edmund Spenser, Philip Sidney,
and William Shakespeare. My research to date has emphasised early modern
legal history, Elizabethan colonial and military activity in Ireland,
textual studies (including palaeography and manuscript studies), the
sixteenth-century reception of Academic and Pyrrhonist epistemology,
early modern secretarial practice, and the theory and practice of
allegory in the sixteenth century.
With Raphael Lyne and Gavin Alexander, I wrote English Handwriting
1500-1700: An Online Course (http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/ceres/ehoc/),
now part of an AHRC-funded project, based at the Cambridge Faculty of
English, called Scriptorium: Medieval and Early Modern Manuscripts,
Online (http://scriptorium.english.cam.ac.uk/).
From the Website of Cambridge Gaza Solidarity Campaign
http://cambridgegazasolidarity.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/academic-letter-to-vice-chancellor.html
'A group of sixty Cambridge University academics 'have spoken out in
dismay at the university's handling of a peaceful protest in which more
than one hundred students occupied the Law Faculty.' The
occupation, which lasted six days, was intended to show solidarity with
the people of Gaza. The students made 'six main demands' (the number of
lesser demands isn't given, whether small or large). One of the main
demands was for disinvestment from the arms trade.
In their letter (February 6, 2009) the academics write
'
We ... strongly agree that an educational institution should not
be involved with or benefit from the arms trade which has brought so
much suffering around the world, and therefore support students' calls
for disinvestment from this industry.'
There's also some inoffensive waffle, '
'As teachers, we strive to foster in our students an interrogative and
transformative attitude towards the world.'
The University authorities gave a more valuable lesson to the students,
in the form of a reality check: the limits to self-indulgence.
'Over the course of the six-day sit-in, the University threatened
matriculation sanctions and legal action. It also endeavoured to prevent
any food being brought into the building for the occupiers.'
If more than a hundred radical Islamists had descended on the Law
Faculty, occupied a different part of the building and demanded
implementation of Sharia law if hundreds and hundreds of other
protesters had decided to occupy the Law Faculty building for other
causes and made their demands, including the demand for recognition of
their right to free speech, then even these academics might just have
realized that this couldn't possibly go on.
http://www.oxbridgeessays.com/blog/is-cambridge-defend-education-defensible-765/
The Cambridge Defend Education campaign group was formed in
October 2010 in opposition to the dramatic cuts to the government’s
education budget and the raising of tuition fees to £9000.
Dr Andrew Zurcher, in an open letter in support of CDE, published
on their website, claimed that any threat to the core values of the
university posed by the protesters when they interrupted Willetts’
speech was offset by the fact that the very act of inviting him to give
the speech was, in the light of his recent political decisions, an
insult to the moral standing of the university in itself. He challenged
Goldhill: “You have said that CDE has mistakenly attacked the core
values of the university. Perhaps you have undermined them, by inviting
a politician to whitewash his ideologically driven rape of the
university sector, in a speech that would rhetorically re-describe it as
consensual sex.”
Dr Simon Goldhill, of the Faculty of Classics, had publicly spoken out
against the government’s new education policy; even joining a group of
681 academics who sent an open letter of protest against it to the
national press last year. But when Willetts’ speech was interrupted, he
reacted with an angry statement on the faculty website, claiming that
the protesters had denied Willetts himself the very freedom of speech
they claimed to be trying to protect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzsddORxcBM
http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/news/0015649-universities-minister-finally-comments-on-students-rustication.html
Willetts was prevented from speaking at all, as several students around
the hall began chanting a 25-minute poem beginning "David Willetts, the
future does not belong to you/This is an epistle that is addressed to
you". The chanting was done using the so-called "people's microphone"
method, whereby Owen Holland read out each line, which was then repeated
back by all the other protesters. Willetts had been due to give a speech
on "The Idea of the University", but left the hall during the course of
the 'epistle'. The protest divided opinion among Cambridge students,
many of whom, including CUSU President Gerard Tully, claimed that it had
violated David Willetts' right to freedom of speech. The protest was
followed by a week-long occupation of Lady Mitchell Hall by Cambridge
Defend Education activists.
Faculty of English
Elizabethan colonial and military activity in Ireland
ntroduces a Renaissance masterpiece to a modern audience.This Guide will
help new readers to understand and enjoy The Faerie Queene, drawing
attention to its various ironies, its self-reflexive construction, its
visual emphasis and the timeless ethical, political, and literary
questions that it asks of all of us.
Edmund Spenser's "The Faerie Queene": A Reading Guide
Chapter 1. Mapping and making
' ... he was never far from the brutal and repressive violence of
Elizabeth's military campaigns in Ireland. He was present at Lord Grey's
victory at Smerwick in the autumn of 1580, when at least 600 Spanish and
Papal troops surrendered and were summarily massacred. He later
accompanied Lord Grey on similarly brutal campaigns in Wicklow and
Wexford and he must have seen - and perhaps done - terrible things durig
the war that slowly engulfed Ireland after the revolt of the Earl of
Tyrone in 1594 ... '
Dr Andrew Zurcher of Queens College, was one of sixty Cambridge
University academics who 'have spoken out in dismay at the university's
handling of a peaceful protest in which more than one hundred students
occupied the Law Faculty,' in the version of reality put out by
Cambridge Gaza Solidarity. The occupation, which lasted six
days, was intended to show solidarity with the people of Gaza. The students
made 'six main demands' (the number of lesser demands isn't given, whether
small or large). One of the main demands was for disinvestment from the
arms trade.
In their letter (February 6, 2009) the academics write
'
We ... strongly agree that an educational institution should not
be involved with or benefit from the arms trade which has brought so
much suffering around the world, and therefore support students' calls
for disinvestment from this industry.'
And if every liberal democracy decided to have nothing to do with the arms
trade, then every liberal democracy would go under. ISIS would no longer be
bombed from the air and the guns would fall silent, the guns of liberal
democracies' unarmed forces, that is. ISIS could invade this country
in perfect safety, and carry out beheading of kuffars. All the signatories
of the letter would be regarded as kuffars.
There's also some relatively inoffensive waffle:
'As teachers, we strive to foster in our students an interrogative and
transformative attitude towards the world' whilst maintaining, of course, a
rigid and unquestioning belief in the dogma of Palestinian righteousness.
This was one proclamation which didn't include even a token reference to
Israel's right to defend itself.
Instead of indulging their self-indulgence, like the sixty academics, the University authorities gave a more valuable lesson to the students,
in the form of a reality check: the limits to self-indulgence.
'Over the course of the six-day sit-in, the University threatened
matriculation sanctions and legal action. It also endeavoured to prevent
any food being brought into the building for the occupiers.'
If one of the main demands had been for the University to impose an
academic boycott against Israel, and a hundred protestors had occupied a
Medical Faculty Building and a hundred more Science Laboratories and a
hundred more Geography buildings, until the university became gridlocked, if a hundred radical Islamists had descended on the Law
Faculty, occupied a different part of the building and demanded
implementation of Sharia law, if hundreds and hundreds of other
protesters had decided to occupy University buildings for other
causes and made their demands, then even these academics might just have
realized that this couldn't possibly go on. (Mentioned below, a
week-long occupation of Lady Mitchell Hall by Cambridge Defend Education
activists.)
http://www.oxbridgeessays.com/blog/is-cambridge-defend-education-defensible-765/
The Cambridge Defend Education campaign group was formed in
October 2010 in opposition to the dramatic cuts to the government’s
education budget and the raising of tuition fees to £9000.
Dr Andrew Zurcher, in an open letter in support of CDE, published
on their website, claimed that any threat to the core values of the
university posed by the protesters when they interrupted Willetts’
speech was offset by the fact that the very act of inviting him to give
the speech was, in the light of his recent political decisions, an
insult to the moral standing of the university in itself. He challenged
Goldhill: “You have said that CDE has mistakenly attacked the core
values of the university. Perhaps you have undermined them, by inviting
a politician to whitewash his ideologically driven rape of the
university sector, in a speech that would rhetorically re-describe it as
consensual sex.”
Dr Simon Goldhill, of the Faculty of Classics, had publicly spoken out
against the government’s new education policy; even joining a group of
681 academics who sent an open letter of protest against it to the
national press last year. But when Willetts’ speech was interrupted, he
reacted with an angry statement on the faculty website, claiming that
the protesters had denied Willetts himself the very freedom of speech
they claimed to be trying to protect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzsddORxcBM
http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/news/0015649-universities-minister-finally-comments-on-students-rustication.html
Willetts was prevented from speaking at all, as several students around
the hall began chanting a 25-minute poem beginning "David Willetts, the
future does not belong to you/This is an epistle that is addressed to
you". The chanting was done using the so-called "people's microphone"
method, whereby Owen Holland read out each line, which was then repeated
back by all the other protesters. Willetts had been due to give a speech
on "The Idea of the University", but left the hall during the course of
the 'epistle'. The protest divided opinion among Cambridge students,
many of whom, including CUSU President Gerard Tully, claimed that it had
violated David Willetts' right to freedom of speech. The protest was
followed by a week-long occupation of Lady Mitchell Hall by Cambridge
Defend Education activists.
Andrew Zurcher outlines his particular interests:
'I work on sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English literature, with a
particular focus on the works of Edmund Spenser, Philip Sidney, and William
Shakespeare. My research to date has emphasised early modern legal history,
Elizabethan colonial and military activity in Ireland, textual studies
(including palaeography and manuscript studies), the sixteenth-century
reception of Academic and Pyrrhonist epistemology, early modern secretarial
practice, and the theory and practice of allegory in the sixteenth century.'
Most of his work is remote from the military and ethical dimensions of the
Israel-Gaza conflict. His publication 'English Handwriting 1500-1700: An
Online Course, written with Raphael Lyne and Gavin Alexander, wouldn't
provide many transferable skills, but his study of military activity in
Ireland might have given him some useful insights, but seems not to have
done so.
This is
from his book 'Edmund Spenser's "The Faerie Queene": A Reading Guide'
Chapter 1. Mapping and making
' ... he was never far from the brutal and repressive violence of
Elizabeth's military campaigns in Ireland. He was present at Lord Grey's
victory at Smerwick in the autumn of 1580, when at least 600 Spanish and
Papal troops surrendered and were summarily massacred. He later
accompanied Lord Grey on similarly brutal campaigns in Wicklow and
Wexford and he must have seen - and perhaps done - terrible things durig
the war that slowly engulfed Ireland after the revolt of the Earl of
Tyrone in 1594 ... '