academic freedom

[parietal]

there is a survey underway from TimesHigherEd on academic freedom which people here might be interested in completing

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/times-higher-educations-academic-freedom-survey

many of the questions are badly worded and ambiguous, but it will still be interesting to see what the responses look like.

Bloody hell - absolutely appalling survey questions. Lots of them just make zero sense 😂I suspect AI might've had a hand in this.
But thanks for this, OP, I'll most definitely complete this.

Thanks for this @parietal - survey done (as clearly as I could ...)

Perhaps I missed it, but the survey doesn’t seem to define what it means by offence or harm. Plus, there’s no nuance or context. I’m offended by someone arguing the earth is flat or arguing that the world is run by giant lizards but I’d never stop them from speaking.

Whilst, I’d be offended by the university hosting someone arguing that all people of a particular demographic should die, although that’s already covered by hate crime laws.

Most of all, I’d like a right of reply by people based on informed positions. It’s the need for open debate that we’re losing in a well meaning but IMO harmful move to ‘protect’ students.

news.sky.com/story/controversial-free-speech-law-delayed-over-anti-semitism-fears-13185403

I kept answering that I believed that on campus, anything could be said, even if it was offensive, as long as it was within the law and didn't constitute hate speech.

I surprised myself by being more of a free speech absolutist than I thought I was!

Of course, I would rather than fundamentalist imams weren't invited on campus to talk to the student feminist group (I mean - cognitive dissonance in the name of 'progressive' politics or what???) but they have a right to speak, as long as their speech doesn't break the law.

We need to counter sexist or racist speech with reasoned arguments. We know how labelling speech as 'harmful' can work against feminists at the moment.

@YellowAsteroid When I was at university, Ann Widdecombe came to campus. She said something incredibly offensive about abortion a week or so before she was due to arrive.

The SU and various women's groups put up posters around campus encouraging people to show up, to ask AW questions about her comments, to debate, to talk.

Indeed, @KStockHERO - we need to remember that reasoned debate, and the better arguments, win out eventually (my middle name is Pollyanna - or Candide ...).

I don't think you can always reasonably expect students to challenge staff. There is plenty of racist and offensive speech allowed under academic freedom policies. If a professor promotes Great Replacement theory in class, for example, saying multiculturalism and immigration have caused an imminent race war saying this to a class of immigrant and 1st/2nd generation British students I personally don't think it's reasonable to tell those students they should just challenge those ideas. If nothing else the power differential will intimidate them and so they just have to sit there and listen to racist bilge. Or if a professor spouts QAnon nonsense. Should students have to waste precious class time refuting that?

I think people have the right to say what they think in general but I think universities should have the right to decide if staff are upholding their broader values in the classroom specifically.

I think people have the right to say what they think in general but I think universities should have the right to decide if staff are upholding their broader values in the classroom specifically.

Yes of course there is a power differential between students and faculty (though my department/uni policies weighs in favour students and has done for years).

However, I am concerned about universities education ‘values’ being anything other than open debate and evidence (based on credible research).

To me, claims to ‘broader values’ opens up a very slippery slope. Those advocating to restrict abortions do so on the basis of their values, the anti immigration riots are claimed to be on the basis of ‘British values’, we see the controversy emerging from the IOC’s inclusivity values. Etc.

Yes of course we must have behaviour policies in treating each other with respect and there are a lot of those, but IMO this is different from imposing broader values in the classroom. There, we see a very diverse and often opposing set of values all strongly held and all bumping up against each other with a lot of assumptions about which and whose values come out on top. It’s not so straightforward.