Italian here: this really happened, but I think that both the tweet and the HN title are misleading.
Paolo Nori, an Italian writer, not a university professor, was supposed to collaborate with the university to hold a free 4-lesson course on Dostoevsky.
The university originally decided to cancel the course and the writer published a video saying that he couldn't believe what they were doing and that, of course, the decision didn't make much sense. Many people protested and complained and the university went back on their steps, but said that Nori, besides talking about Dostoevsky should've also presented some Ukranian authors.
Nori refused because, again, he thinks the request doesn't make sense and also he's not an expert on Ukranian literature and doesn't know any author.
It's still an absurd situation, but I don't know if it should be framed as a ban
I doubt that the ultimate motive was to "present Ukrainian authors", because they could have done that by hiring actual experts in this space, or even just giving out free books by such authors.
It seems like the ultimate motive was to "ban Dostoevsky" and they pushed until they found a way to do so with plausible deniability. I.e. "We didn't do dismiss you, you just chose not comply with our unreasonable policy changes".
no, sorry, it's not like that. Paolo Nori, the writer who was supposed to hold the course, is a well known and loved writer in Italy. Besides being an expert on Russian literature, he's also funny and his lessons are special because he's doing them. The same course on Dostoevsky by any other professor wouldn't have gotten the same attention and interest
He meant they could have hired other experts to cover the Ukrainian course part. and kept Paolo for the Russian expertise part of the course.
the university clearly wasn't interested in getting attention on what he had to say. precisely because what he had to say would gather much attention.
The way I understand this situation is not that that they wanted to "ban" Dostoevsky. Instead, they tried to postpone it in order to avoid any escalation or negative reactions given the current times. Still doesn't make sense but it's a very different reason.
wow i never got that impression when i listened to 2 of his books but reading that post they mention it's more in his journalistic pieces so its possible. Im not a fan of banning books, but this Dostoyevsky Society almost certainly knows his works better then me.
There's also his antisemitism and what you might call his Christian (specifically, Russian-Orthodox) chauvinism, and his hostility to Western culture. Like the bloggers say, he's not very consistent in his positions, at least when you consider his work as a whole--his so-called "polyphonic" approach involves putting several worldviews in conversation with one another and showing no obvious preference for one over the others.
Interestingly, the Soviets discouraged reading Dostoevsky, as opposed to his rival Tolstoy, whom they saw as amenable to a Marxist reading.
I can add a similar story: from time to time I'm volunteering on a russian school sail ship, that's been sailing around Europe for the last 20 years, from festival to festival, teaching people from every origins to sail and live together in a 3-mast replica. Many harbour-cities in Europe have send messages to that ship that it was no longer welcome, because of its flag, regardless of the ship having no ties to Russia's government, not having been to Russia for the last 10 years, having Ukrainian crewmembers, etc.
Funny enough, this very morning a former sailor on that ship wrote a letter, which ended with these words:
> It is with a heavy heart that I learnt today that Russian ships are not welcomed anymore to the Tall Ships Races and maritime festivals because of the war in Ukraine. Shtandart is a private ship, built and operated privately by sailing enthusiasts, with no connection whatsoever with the Russian government. I cannot imagine how that exclusion can have any impact on the Russian government decisions. I can see though very clearly how that exclusion can cripple the Shtandart project financially, making its life changing mission impossible.
> I see banning the Shtandart from our maritime festivals and the Tall Ships Races like banning Tarkovsky from our cinemas, Tchaikovsky from our music halls, Kandinsky from our art museums or Dostoevsky from our libraries.
None of those dead geniuses have the sway to reject the current Russian government and demand changes. If enough Russians are impacted, maybe they will find the will to do so.
> regardless of the ship having no ties to Russia's government
Flying under a Russian flag, registering itself with the Russian government, and agreeing to operate under Russian jurisdiction sure sound like ties to the Russian government to me. Presumably if the ship decided to stop operating under those circumstances, there are other countries who would be willing to accept the ship to their jurisdiction.
Just imagine this had been done to any other nation: Americans, French, Germans, Japanese, Chinese etc. Do you think any of these would just say "Wtf, let's overthrow the government to make the foreigners happy!"? If you think so, there are some examples to the contrary in not so distant history e.g. with Germany after WW1.
First, it is easy to say Russians lack the will to oppose their government. Had you the will to oppose the American government when it invaded Irak, despite you could do so without facing jail, unlike Russians?
Secondly, a flag means many different things for different people. I do not want to discuss this, I think this is too subtle and sensible a topic to be discussed here and now. Suffice to say it had been considered to change the flag. Meanwhile, they have been flying the Ukrainian flag alongside the Russian flag (you can imagine the risks involved. Now the ship has to be guarded from stupid nationalists from all sides).
There is no side in any conflict that is not human.
If you truly believe otherwise please document yourself further, I can assure you you will discover that, once again, all was not black and white (I recommend any book or video from few years ago about the situation in Ukraine).
To get back to the ship, I hope we will manage the situation through dialog, first with harbors, then with people who may be shocked to see this or that flag, patiently defusing locally small bits of the hatred that's been manufactured at such a large scale.
> Change their flag to the Ukrainian one (or the UN or whatever else)
Ships don't fly flags to signal patriotism or some other virtue. They fly the civil ensigns of the country where they are registered as a matter of international law.
Good luck trying to register a Russian owned ship in Ukraine in the present circumstances.
Your parent poster presented a reasonable argument for their position. You responded by calling it "deranged nonsense", without specifying what you found problematic in the parent's post.
The GP quoted what they believe to be deranged nonsense, which is a reasonable position to have. The coffee shop down your street is not a Government Agency. Get real.
> The GP quoted what they believe to be deranged nonsense, which is a reasonable position to have. The coffee shop down your street is not a Government Agency. Get real.
I never said that GP is wrong about it being deranged nonsense, I merely pointed out that they didn't make any attempt to explain their position or convince anybody else. They made a low-quality knee-jerk shitpost that added no value to anyone reading it. If they want to convince other people, they should use at least a few words to explain what they thought was wrong.
Not everything requires pedantic justification, especially deranged calls for dehumanization and ethnic prejudice. It is Common Sense (and legally correct) that coffee shops are not government agents just because they are registered in a particular place.
> Not everything requires pedantic justification, especially deranged calls for dehumanization and ethnic prejudice. It is Common Sense (and legally correct) that coffee shops are not government agents just because they are registered in a particular place.
Nobody claimed that coffee shops (or fishing vessels) are "government agents". The claim was that a fishing vessel registered to Russia has "ties" to Russian government. This claim is factually true. For instance, they pay some amount of taxes to the Russian government. This also holds true for a coffee shop: a coffee shop registered to Finland pays some amount of taxes to Finnish government.
So, Osama bin Laden had a valid justification after all. /s
> You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake: This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.
You're comparing the murder of 3000 civilians to the act of cancelling cats from a cat show. These acts are different, as one is a peaceful act of protest, while the other is a violent act of war.
If Osama bin Laden had initiated economic sanctions and boycotts (cancelings) against the U.S. would it have been justified? Yes!
I am rather concerned about the recent willingness of some HN commenters to jettison basic practices of civilised discourse when it even remotely involves the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
If one has a convincing argument, one should just make it. There is nothing pedantic about that. Insinuating derangement and denying common sense should not be necessary. Those who feel they have to resort to such practices usually do so precisely because they are unable to make a convincing argument. Why else would one act like this?
Yes, I agree. Depending on scale of democracy. In countries like USA where they continue voting and even fund the war criminals they fully deserve same penalty than those politicians and political parties they support. Explicit support for anyone participating in murder should result in death penalty after all.
On other hand where they have less effects like in Russia, maybe less so.
Even when the government throws the opposition in jail? When foreign media is banned, so most citizens don’t even know that there is something to protest? Tough break to be from that country: your government oppresses you and the rest of the world does too.
Russian history should teach us as well as anything that even totalitarian dictatorships have to operate with a modicum of consent from those they govern. Pitchforks and torches (especially when wielded by soldiers' mothers) are underrated as a tool for political changes.
While I get what you're saying in regards to the fact that no Russian citizen is being punished in this specific event, I can't help but feel like banning the works of someone who is around 140 years removed from what is Russia today is nothing more than a blatant attack on "Russian-ness", so to speak.
You absolutely do not get what I'm saying. The action of bannig dostoevsky is absurd because there is not even a tenuous thread of accoutability there. Russia was ruled by the Romanovs when he died.
I'm actually in full agreement with you. I must have read your comment "Dostoevsky is not a citizen of Russia" with a different connotation than you intended. Going back and reading it, and the parent comment, makes me realize you were getting at something else. In any event, I also believe is this fervent foolishness.
I like to agree because it's a simple razor that I can live my life by. I like simple. But the minute I endorse it all the shit countries I had lived in pop into my mind. People that have had no say in the horrors their leaders inflicted on the world. Countries rarely make decisions that are great for people living outside them, hell even at best of times they don't make great decisions for people who hold a passport.
I think that the anger that we all feel is incredibly valuable but only if we aim it at the right direction. Russia is a Kleptocracy governed by oligarchs who we in the West are happy to accommodate. How come Abramovich had a week to get his affairs in order and now sails in his yacht "Eclipse" around Gibraltar[1] when he should be sitting in a cell next to Assange. The real criminals are our dear leaders who prop up dark money and their oligarchs. I don't buy for a minute that any of my hate should be spent on civilians who are just like our racist uncle cheering for Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, or any of the other chuckle-ducks that have been hijacking our attention. This is their playbook, don't play their game, play yours.
not sure how to reconcile this... i dont think we should hold citizens accountable because the citizens dont control russia. Even in democratic countries the citizens only marginally control what the country does imo. There are people and organizations within russia that have far more power then the average russian citizen.
There's a difference between the tacit recognition that the people aren't wholly removed from the decisions of their government, even in oligarchy, and this sort of full-blown performative Russophobia. Harm against ordinary Russian citizens can be justified inasmuch as it pressurizes the regime to change course or to be itself changed -- banning Dostoevsky or a random private ship does neither. It's hostility for the sake of hostility and, if anything, will likely galvanize the sort of disdain for the West that makes folks tolerant of thugs like Putin.
You know what happens in a democracy where people do not have enough education and just don't trust their own government to work effectively? They elect the least capable people possible to positions of power.
Take Brazil for example. There will be federal elections there this year and who is the candidates that's set to win the elections? Lula, the same president that presided over Brazil when the largest corruption scheme in the history of the world [1] was at its peak. He spent years in prison and was freed recently, just in time to become president again, because of course, people believe he was innocent, or probably will at least "steal less" than the others.
I am not convinced we should blame all Brazilians for the actions of its corrupt government even if just about a majority of Brazilians vote for patently corrupt candidates. As always , these things are complicated.
However, documents leaked in June 2019 to Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept suggest that Judge Sérgio Moro may have been partial in his decisions,[20] passing on 'advice, investigative leads, and inside information to the prosecutors'[21] to 'prevent Lula's Workers' Party from winning' the 2018 elections.[21] Several top jurisprudence authorities and experts in the world have reacted to the leaks by describing former President Lula as a political prisoner and calling for his release.[22][23] Lula was ultimately released on 8 November 2019,[24] and Brazil's Supreme Court ruled justice Moro was biased against Lula in March 2021.[25]
Do you believe that means Lula had no responsibility and is innocent, or even that he's capable enough to run the country despite the fact this scandal happened right under his nose, even if he didn't explicitly participate?
Every country is at least a little bit democratic. Russian citizens living in Russia have a lot more power to affect the political situation in Russia than non-Russian citizens, or those not living in Russia.
You can indeed switch flag, but it's not easy, and they do not like that solution for several reasons:
- for them the flag means "Russia" not "Putin" (they added the Ukrainian flag by the way, which might also be borderline illegal)
- I suspect they do not want to give way to what they perceive as a temporary hysteria
- the ship is a replica of the first ship of the Baltic sea, it carries various flags of historical importance. You can't just relabel it as a panamean ship and call it a day (although maybe that's what will be done eventually, if only temporarily).
I personally believe that they are right to stand against russophobia, as long as possible. Please don't misinterpret this as suport for the current war, or support for some russian imperialism. Come to visit the ship one day if you have the chance, and see for yourself.
No one thinks that the Russian people are collectively responsible for what's happening in Ukraine. If there were a way to target Putin, and Putin alone, then we'd do that. But it's impossible. So we use the blunt (and unfair) instrument of sanctions to try to make this painful for all Russians, in the hopes that doing so puts pressure on Putin to stop his invasion. It's not at all fair to ordinary Russians, but perhaps it's justified given the gravity of what's happening in Ukraine.
I see nothing wrong with restricting the rights of Russian citizens in foreign countries.
Their government is invading a neighbor and causing the death of thousands of people. Due to the presence of nuclear weapons, NATO forces can not directly engage with Russia militarily so the only solution is for Russians to deal with the problem themselves
Theres something deeply funny about hiding behind a throwaway account while saying that anyone Russian by means of passport ought to be repressed. Cowardly display
You're calling for repression while avoiding responsibility for what you post. Specifically you're calling for nationality-based repression which would affect people who haven't lived in the country for decades or had no meaningful input.
You're just feigning a petty tyrant.
> Can you link to your LinkedIn or other personally identifiable information?
My handle isn't some random assortment of characters and if you Google my name, you will find it all.
> What's your solution to what's going on in Ukraine?
I'm just some idiot with a keyboard, who cares what my opinion is?
>You're calling for repression while avoiding responsibility for what you post
It sounds like you're opposed to the idea of interacting on the internet without some kind of verified identification. Discussions have different levels of "safe" viewpoints. Instead of having a different account for each tier of discussion, I use a singular account for all of them. That being said, I don't think this is an extreme point of view as the west is already sanctioning wide swaths of the Russian economy.
>Specifically you're calling for nationality-based repression which would affect people who haven't lived in the country for decades or had no meaningful input.
Yes. Citizens from enemy countries should not be treated the same as those from friendly or neutral countries.
For Russians, it's their country and their people that are invading a neighbor and killing others. It's their president that is threatening to start a nuclear war. Russian citizens in foreign countries are free to claim asylum in those countries and work towards a different citizenship
> Discussions have different levels of "safe" viewpoints
You don't have viewpoints, you have cosplays. If you had viewpoints, you'd stick by them. Instead you get to have your cake and eat it: post whatever catches your fancy that particular week and then pretend to be on the posters version of the underground railroad.
Define "their government"?
Do they own the oligarchs and bureaucrats that rule Russia?
If the country I happen to be citizen of launch a war, like it did recently, say in Lybia, am I responsible of this because I failed to predict that the government for which I did not vote would start that war?
You seam to strongly believe that reality is divided into countries. I think this largely fictional view obscures everything in our present situation.
>If the country I happen to be citizen of launch a war, like it did recently, say in Lybia, am I responsible of this
More responsible than a citizen of another country.
How does Russia's invasion of Ukraine end?
The only two I see are:
Ukrainian troops kill enough Russians and physically push them back into Russia or Putin orders a withdrawal due to domestic pressure or fear of that domestic pressure.
The Ukrainians are doing the first part but the Russian people are the only ones that can do the second part (with the helping of sanctions).
At some point all involved parties will find a new equilibrium they are OK with.
Opinion of russians in the street count very little. Opinion of russians in the army probably more I believe.
But our opinion does count a little too. I would like if more westerners would show support for negotiations (esp. regarding NATO) instead of endless war.
We're entering "Freedom Fries" levels of stupid here. I was born in Ukraine and still have close family there now, but moves like this don't do anything to help.
One of the most common tactics for repressive Russian regimes over the last 100 years has been jailing and exiling their own academics and authors. Ironic that western institutions now want to follow in their footsteps.
I feel like it would have been better for him to stay and fight for his principles. Now the administration is just going to fill the professorship with someone who will toe the line and the university will slip further into this insanely partisan groupthink.
the only way I can make sense of this (and I'm probably wrong maybe some Italians can help me) is that Italy is extremely divided in their politics (see Salvini[1]) ... and so the university overcompensated by trying to "stick it to Putin" while being totally ignorant about Russian literature. It's a long shot but it's all I've got. :/
it's honestly much simpler than this. Who took the decision of cancelling the course was just thinking they were doing the right and sensitive thing. This time we can be almost 100% certain that there were no politics or politicians involved. Just a dumb move by someone that clearly has no idea how things go
the outrage this cancellation has created luckily made the university peddle back on this, but no info on if the Prof got his job back, or if the university apologized for their behavior.
It's incredibly difficult to fire people in Italy but somebody should at least apologize because this is a terrible look.
Certainly would think twice before studying literature, or philosophy at such a place. (triple skull emoji)
Cancel culture has reached an absurd, satirical level cancelling an entire culture and nation of people now. And not even just people. The International Cat Federation banned Russian cats from competition [1]. This cat story is something I'd expect to see in The Onion.
I wouldn't call it cancel culture, it's something that doesn't really exist in Italy in this term. Read my comment here for some clarifications on how things really went: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30644847
According to the tweet, it was cancelled "because he’s a Russian writer". It doesn't matter what happened after that. If an academic institution steps in and cancels something because of someone's nationality, especially while following a herd of similar behaviour, that's pure cancel culture in action.
Maybe the term hasn't caught on in Italy but it sounds to me like the actual behaviour has.
Aside from the cancel culture term, I'd go even further and be clear. It's pure Russophobia, and it's no better than Islamophobia, antisemitism, homophobia, etc.
Cancel culture is only when American left wing does it. When American right wing does it, it is not cancel culture. When non-Americans do it, it is not cancel culture.
That's an absolutely absurd conclusion to reach here. Yes a university banning Dostoyevsky is stupid, but Russia has attacked a free independent country and is bombing hospitals and maternity wards. Everything and anything to do with Russia should be currently banned if you have even a sliver of a moral compass. That's not cancel culture, that's having two eyes and a few braincells to go with them.
> Everything and anything to do with Russia should be currently banned if you have even a sliver of a moral compass. That's not cancel culture, that's having two eyes and a few braincells to go with them.
Eh, that is a prototypical example of cancel culture, and your suggestion of re-naming this activity to "having two eyes and a few braincells to go with them" is very insincere and unhelpful.
Getting rid of any and all ties with a country that is starting aggression in Europe not seen here in 70 years, is cancel culture? Because if yes, then sure, I love cancel culture. We should cancel culture the crap out of Russia, including their cat beauty contests.
Yes, it's called "cancel culture" even in cases where you favor the canceling, not only in cases where you oppose the canceling.
For what it's worth, I also agree that canceling Russia broadly is the right move at this time (although I do think that banning Dostoevski is stupid).
I feel like you're redefining "cancel culture", at least the way I understand it. To me "cancel culture" is exclusively the western(primarily US) obsession with cancelling things which are deemed even marginally offensive to someone.
Russia invading another European country and us breaking up all ties with them is not "cancel culture". We're not doing it because someone's feelings got hurt. There's an actual war going on, with very real people dying. Calling our reaction to it "cancel culture" strikes me as dismissive, offensive almost(yes I'm offended at your use of the phrase cancel culture to describe this).
> Russia invading another European country and us breaking up all ties with them is not "cancel culture". We're not doing it because someone's feelings got hurt. There's an actual war going on, with very real people dying. Calling our reaction to it "cancel culture" strikes me as dismissive, offensive almost(yes I'm offended at your use of the phrase cancel culture to describe this).
First of all, I already said that I support your position of cancelling Russia. Yes, I agree that Russia's offensive war-mongering is horrible, and the situation in Ukraine is extremely bleak with millions of people suffering because of Russia's actions. I agree that severe economic sanctions and voluntarily imposed boycotts and other non-violent pressure can help put an end to this war (either by pressuring Russians to overthrow the government, or by pressuring the oligarchs to convince Putin to back down, or simply by draining Putin's economy so he is unable to pay soldiers at some point in the future). It appears to me that we agree on what the facts are, and we agree what should be done about it, but you are offended at my choice of words.
Ok, so let's talk about the terminology. You imply that there are situations where proponents of cancel culture propose "cancelling" somebody because of "hurt feelings". Can you point to a single example in the history of humanity where this has actually occurred? No, you can't, because the proponents of cancel culture have an obsession of re-naming everything. In particular, they vehemently oppose the phrasing "cancel culture", they never use that term, unless it's in a sentence where they deny it exists or deny to be participants in it. And they most certainly won't describe the motivations for cancelling someone with the description of "hurt feelings". Show me a single example of a person genuinely saying "yes cancel culture is great, and we should cancel person X because they hurt person Y's feelings". You can't.
Here you are, defending the decision to cancel cats from a cat show. I agree with that decision, but that isn't enough for you; you want me to describe these actions with weasel words instead of calling it what it is.
"Getting rid of ties" is very different from declaring a witch hunt on anything concerning Russian culture. Surely we should also stop using any technology Russian inventors invented or helped invent? Should chemists look for a replacement of the Periodic Table?
I hope people realize bigger danger of easily rationalizing such narrative. Of course governments and institutions need to protect their interests, hence such actions. However regular people almost always lose by having such view.
Should we "ban" the history, culture or authors from the most of the nations as almost all of them have been aggressors at some point in time?
I'm starting to really understand why we haven't found any intelligent extraterrestrial life with each passing day.
The amount of completely nonsensical hatred and banning of Russians that's so fervently supported is astonishing. Chess players, athletes, professors, banning pre-modern authors. Really, what's the point?
Even if this particular situation is a hoax, it's not like other Russians haven't been banned.
May history judge the West harshly and these actions be a reminder to it that it has zero moral credibility to project upon the world.
Also if you have any Russian acquaintances, now would be the time to make sure your attic is in good shape because we are a very short step from the Stop Putin Camps being deployed.
There's an astonishing number of people that are backing these decisions, if social media is any indication. It's truly unbelievable. I mean, we're attacking people of Russian heritage. Whenever similar things happen with other races or cultures we bend over backwards to ensure the opposite is occurring: do not stereotype. These are strange times.
It looks like if someone somewhere with a lot of power is pushing for escalation and preparing masses to support, or fight, a large war.
I believe this is most likely just a bluff, and that this super power does not really intend to fuel a long and large war in Europe just for the sake of dividing Russia just for the sake of isolating China.
I'm sorry you feel that way. He is certainly as relevant as Camus, Proust, Kafka, Hemingway, Beckett, Sartre, Solzhenitsyn, and many others.
The fact that he is still popular after all these years is the best endorsement a writer could get.
The bestsellers are littered with names that will be forgotten in 5 years. As N.N. Taleb says: a book that has been around for a hundred years is likely to be around for another 100. The same can't be said for a book that has been popular for 5 years.
I think they're meaning to say "He has no philosophical or moral ties to the current government" rather than "He's not relevant as a literary figure in modern society"
> I'm sorry you feel that way. He is certainly as relevant as Camus, Proust, Kafka, Hemingway, Beckett, Sartre, Solzhenitsyn, and many others.
I think the point is that the author has nothing to do with the re-emergence of the Soviet regime, and banning him because "Russia" ignores two centuries of history.
Yes, Bicocca University DID cancel a 4 lesson course about Dostoevskij, but after the professor went viral on social media they made up their minds and confirmed the course.
Yes, it was a very nonsense decision but they DID NOT banned teaching Dostoevskij in the end.
they confirmed the course telling the "professor" (he's actually a writer) that he needed to talk also about Ukranian literature and authors. After this, he decided to simply held his course somewhere else
There is a very very very very dumb heuristic that people rely upon for political reasoning. I use 4 verys becaues I don't think 3 is sufficient. There is no such thing as the baddies. Yes, if two people disagree, at least one of them is wrong, but that is a lower bound, one which is rarely met in practice.
Hopefully people are waking up the reality that 90% of people can only think in terms of "country A good, country B bad". And hopefully, what that says about our education systems.
"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it."[a]
I propose a variant:
With every new generation that is born, society becomes more ignorant of the past, which recedes into ever more distant history, until only a minority of educated people, including Historians, remember it, condemning everyone else to repeat the same mistakes.
Let's be clear here, he's not being canceled because he was Russian but because he supports Putin's ideas and because he has not distanced himself from what Putin is doing. Public figures also have this kind of responsibility.
Paolo Nori, an Italian writer, not a university professor, was supposed to collaborate with the university to hold a free 4-lesson course on Dostoevsky. The university originally decided to cancel the course and the writer published a video saying that he couldn't believe what they were doing and that, of course, the decision didn't make much sense. Many people protested and complained and the university went back on their steps, but said that Nori, besides talking about Dostoevsky should've also presented some Ukranian authors. Nori refused because, again, he thinks the request doesn't make sense and also he's not an expert on Ukranian literature and doesn't know any author.
It's still an absurd situation, but I don't know if it should be framed as a ban