Abertay cleared the lecture. The reaction did not end

Abertay University has concluded its investigation into the October criminology lecture that prompted widespread complaint and public criticism.

Its findings were unambiguous. The lecture was deemed appropriate in the context of the module. None of the complaints were upheld.

That is the formal outcome of the process established to assess what took place.

Accused.scot has previously examined the Abertay lecture and the circumstances surrounding it. This article does not revisit those facts in detail. It considers instead what has followed the university’s findings, and how the response has developed in their aftermath.

Subsequent coverage has not altered the evidential position. What it reveals instead is something more telling: not new evidence concerning the lecture itself, but a continued refusal, in some quarters, to accept the conclusion reached.

The session in question, titled “‘Victim’ Feminism and Trauma Informed Approach”, formed part of a criminology programme. It included contributions from an external speaker invited to address issues relating to criminal justice and the operation of the legal system.

Following review, the university determined that the inclusion of the speaker was appropriate in context. It upheld none of the complaints made in relation to the lecture.

It is also of note that, of the volume of complaints submitted, only one originated from a student who had been present at the session. Limited additional feedback was relayed indirectly. Students interviewed as part of the investigation indicated that the reaction which developed externally did not reflect their experience within the classroom.

These are the findings as established through the university’s own process.

Recent reporting has not introduced further evidential material bearing on what occurred in the lecture. There is no transcript, no additional first-hand account, and no new factual basis upon which the original findings might be revisited.

Instead, the emphasis has shifted. Criticism is now directed at the outcome itself. Concerns are raised regarding harm, balance, and institutional judgment. Reference has been made to a complaint being taken to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

These developments reflect dissatisfaction with the result. They do not alter the evidential position already established.

It is also necessary to consider how this phase of the story is being presented. The follow-up coverage does not report new facts about the lecture. It reports reaction to the outcome. Personal accounts, expressions of dissatisfaction, and claims of harm are presented as developments in their own right, despite the absence of additional evidence capable of altering the findings already reached.

This distinction is significant. Reporting, in its proper sense, is concerned with establishing what has occurred and testing claims against evidence. Where no new material is available, the focus can shift instead to perception, with reaction taking the place of substantiated development.

That is what is happening here. The story continues, not because the evidential position has changed, but because disagreement with the outcome persists.

There is a further question which arises from this. Why does a story continue to be advanced in the absence of new evidence?

In ordinary circumstances, continued reporting follows new information, new testimony, or a material change in position. None of those conditions are present here. The findings remain unchanged. The evidential position is settled.

What persists instead is reaction. That reaction is then reported, and presented as an ongoing development. In effect, the absence of new evidence becomes secondary to the continuation of the narrative itself.

This is not a neutral shift. It reflects how parts of the media sustain a narrative without new evidence, by elevating reaction to the status of fact.

The nature of the dispute has therefore changed. The initial question concerned what had taken place in the lecture. That question has now been examined through a formal process. What follows is no longer an extension of that inquiry, but a challenge to its conclusion.

In principle, there are recognised grounds upon which any finding may properly be revisited: the emergence of new evidence, or the identification of procedural failure. In their absence, the integrity of the process depends upon the outcome being allowed to stand.

In this instance, neither condition has been met. The underlying facts have not changed. What has changed is the response to them.

This is not an argument that outcomes should never be questioned. There are cases where outcomes must be challenged, particularly where new evidence emerges, where relevant material was never tested, or where the process itself is in question. That is the basis on which appeals exist.

But that is not what is happening here.

In this case, no new evidence has been presented about the lecture itself. The findings have not been challenged through further material, but through continued disagreement with the outcome.

That is not an evidential challenge. It is a rejection of the result.

The distinction matters. Challenging an outcome through evidence strengthens a system. Rejecting an outcome without it weakens the meaning of the process altogether.

The significance of the Abertay case now lies not only in the lecture, but in what has followed it. A process was undertaken. A conclusion was reached. The complaints were not upheld.

If reaction alone is sufficient to sustain a story, then evidence ceases to be the threshold for continuing it.

If such outcomes can be set aside without the introduction of new evidence or the demonstration of procedural deficiency, the function of the process itself is diminished.

This is not a question of agreement or disagreement with any particular conclusion. It is a question of whether conclusions, once reached through established procedures, retain their authority in the absence of grounds to reopen them.

On that point, the implications extend well beyond a single lecture.