To worry about free speech at universities

[ChristinaXYZ]

Despite the various moves by the government to supposedly protect free speech and normal academic deabte the situation on the ground does not seem to change at all.

In the last week Claire Fox was disinvited from Royal Holloway for a deabte on free speech I believe - incredible as that may seem. Some students want to hear what she had to say and had invited her but got 'strong-armed' out of it by the students' union and then failed by the university admin who should have backed free speech.

And before people say it can't be that bad, Claire Fox's was disinvited after liking a Ricky Gervias joke - going on his social media profile that means millions and millions of us are also not fit to speak to university students!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/22/chilling-truth-cancellation/

Today this:

"Dr John Armstrong, a scholar at King's College London (KCL), applied to carry out a survey of elite athletes and volunteers on whether trans women, who are born male, should compete in women's track and field categories and whether they felt they could express their views.

However, the university's ethics panel rejected his application last week citing equality and diversity concerns, in what has been labelled an attack on academic freedom."

Further in the article it goes on to say:

"Dr Armstrong told The Telegraph: "They appear to be trying to prevent me from using the concept of sex at all. I am not misgendering any individuals, I am just accurately using the terms male and female.

"I’m being blocked from conducting research and it’s impacting upon my academic freedom.

"No serious work has been done by the various federations to try to find out the opinions of people in athletics, both at the grassroots and elite athletes.
"By refusing to allow people to conduct research that doesn’t meet certain activist viewpoints, that undermines the credibility of research in general.""

You can read much more here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/26/transgender-athlete-research-rejected-professor-called-trans/

What it must be like to study and work in this kind of cloistered enviroment with a kind of inquisition checking up on whther you have transgressed I can't imagine. there must be hundreds of little choices staff and students make every day to conform - changing what they say,m what they write, the topics they're prepared to research. All the little chilling-effect ramifications that never make the headlines.

And if you think your family is woke enough for your teens to pass the purity tests when they get to unviersity - you're wrong. You can't feed this monster to pacify it. If wants bigger and bigger sacrifices and keeps changing the rules.

I just wish the governemnt would do more. Much more. And now.

Nothing I’ve said disagrees with anything you’ve said except for the final line. Free speech and academic freedoms means hosts of any event can bar any speakers they choose. It works both ways.

Free speech and academic freedoms means hosts of any event can bar any speakers they choose. It works both ways

But the hosts of the event wanted to host it. They were prevented from doing so.

You're repeatedly failing to understand the difference between freedom of expression and censorship. It's a pretty crucial distinction. Nor do you understand the specific role that universities are charged with to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom.

Universities are supposed to uphold a higher standard in this regard. That's not just an opinion of what they ought to do, it's a statement of what they are required to do, according to regulatory frameworks. The fact that some people on here are saying "they can ban who they like" is indicative of poor understanding. That a poster would also say that a marketing department could ban a speaker is indicative of how corrupted the university sector (or attitudes to it) has become thanks to capitalism.

Well you certainly appeared to be defending it in your very first post on this thread.

Strange. Where did I defend it?

Free speech and academic freedoms means hosts of any event can bar any speakers they choose. It works both ways.

But they invited someone then disinvited them. You are refusing to address that fact. They made a choice to change their decision - why do you thin that is and how can it still be free speech if they felt the need to do that? Are you suggesting that they just randomly changed their minds? If that's not what you're suggesting, please explain.

When you called... (checks notes) deplatforming someone whose views don't align with the establishment position "freedom of speech".

In the context of a university, no less.

I think there are two rather different issues that keep being confused:

(1) Whether students should have the right to avoid potentially 'triggering' course content. There, I am with the free speech absolutists. Nobody has GOT to study any particular subject; but if you do choose to, you should not be able to select only what's comfortable for you. If you don't want to hear about serious illness and death, don't study medicine. If you don't want to read books that might make you feel uncomfortable, don't study English literature. If you don't want to hear anything that might call your religious faith into question, don't study philosophy. Etc. But don't demand that the subjects be watered down to avoid upsetting you, or that you should have special exemptions from parts of the content.

(2) Whether people with unpopular views should be invited to speak at universities in an extracurricular context. That is a more complex issue, as such talks are not part of a course, and no one has a RIGHT to be invited to speak. I think it's a pity if people are too readily excluded as speakers- but they are not being denied a basic freedom, as after all, most people never get to give talks to university societies; and such societies usually have limited budgets and have to select speakers on one basis or another. I also think there's a difference between, at one extreme, excluding a speaker on an academic subject because they posted something controversial on social media 10 years ago; at the other extreme, excluding a professional troll like Katie Hopkins who only wants to come to stir up trouble; and, between the extremes, excluding a politician whose views are disliked by the student organizers.

In most cases, such speakers are being invited or disinvited by student organizations- not by the academic lecturers, or the university as an institution.

I agree that people shouldn't be invited and then disinvited. Very unprofessional and 'flaky'. But no one has a right to be invited in the first place.

BTW, the strongest attacks on 'free speech and academic freedoms' that I have observed or heard about over many years as a university teacher have involved, not big-P Political controversies, but occasions where senior academics have tried to block speaker invitations, publication of journal articles, and even job appointments, grant applications, and even students' examination success, as a result of disagreements over rather obscure academic theories, or simply someone being considered insufficiently respectful toward a powerful person. Not common, I'm glad to say; but certainly happens on occasion; and the most extreme cases that I know about occurred 20 or 30 years ago, so it's not a new thing.

ToWhitToWhoo, in your point (2) you are completely sidestepping the fact that some students did want to hear the speaker. I have no problem with a person not being invited because nobody wants to go to their talk. But if some people do want to hear her, and others don't, surely the obvious thing is to allow the talk to go ahead and nobody is forced to attend? The university have instead allowed censorship, which is certainly a free speech issue.

Don't forget that a great many important academic theories were once considered unpopular, controversial and even offensive. Darwin and Galileo are two very obvious examples. Just because someone is unpopular and goes against the prevailing wisdom of their time doesn't mean they're wrong. And universities should be places were unpopular ideas aren't censored.

So, I (checks notes) didn’t do what you’re accusing me of? Cool

I mean, it's literally there in your first post, but whatever.

Except it’s not. Pointing out that a particular behaviour is freedom of speech is not defending that behaviour. Just because you recognise someone’s right to say something doesn’t mean you’re defending the content of what they’re saying. That’s the whole premise of freedom of speech - if you agree with freedom of speech it applies to opinions that you both agree with and disagree with.

It’s freedom of speech for John to say he hates olives. If you were saying John had no right to say that then I’d point out it’s his freedom of speech. It doesn’t mean I’m making any comment at all on olives.

Pointing out that a particular behaviour is freedom of speech is not defending that behaviour.

I don't think it counts as "pointing out" when your assertion is incorrect.

Failing to invite someone you don't want to hear is (arguably) a demonstration of freedom of expression. Rescinding an invitation due to pressure from a group intent on censoring people is most certainly not.

Saying that something is free speech is defending it.

And you've got it wrong anyway. Some jobsworth on the diversity committee deciding that the university should deplatform anyone they personally don't agree with is not a university exercising its right to free speech. A university is a broad church. It is not just one person, or one small group of people who get to decide what "the university's" views should be. A university is the sum of the people within it.

If one group within a university have decided they would like to invite a certain speaker, another group shouldn't be able to just veto them. That's not exercising your right to free speech. It's preventing others from exercising their right to free speech.

If you don't agree with the views of the speaker, don't attend the event. Or better still, do attend the event, listen to what they have to say, and then debate them in an intelligent manner.

But this isn't debate, this is dictatorship, and it has no place in a university.

As for your olives analogy, it's freedom of speech for John to say he hates olives. It's not freedom of speech for John to prevent others from saying they like olives, or eating them.

Saying that something is free speech is defending it.

No, it really isn’t. If you think people are only allowed to say things that you agree with, you’re not pro-freedom of speech.

It’s freedom of speech to say “no John, I like olives, you can’t come to my restaurant and put up a sign saying “I hate olives” even though some of my customers also hate olives and have said they want that sign because I have other customers who do like olives and I have an olive supplier that I don’t want to upset”. And it’s not a violation of John’s freedom of speech to tell him to put his sign somewhere else.

Weirdly, I want to listen to the opinions of people I disagree with, so that I can continue to measure my thinking against theirs.

This whole attitude of a generation of young adults unable to even listen to another point of view without having to rush to a safe space and quiver in fear of what another person might think, is crippling the whole of society and will end up in a massive backlash.

The ones willing to listen and engage and talk to other people who don't like Dr Who/Star Trek/Harry Potter are the ones who will be more able to cope with real life.

Right, so whose university is it?

These little tin pot dictators in the diversity office own the university, do they?

According to whom?

I'm pretty sure the people who disagree with them paid their fees too.

Exactly this.

A university isn't supposed to be a safe space. It's supposed to be somewhere you learn and grow, in large part through exposure to different people and ideas.

If you're looking for a safe space, I suggest you enrol in a crèche instead.

ManipulatorPedipulator, are you aware that a university is not the same thing as a human? And that only humans can claim human rights? Organisations / businesses do not have human rights. The people who work there do, and the people who use them do. But the individual business does not.

As an individual I can refuse entry to my home based on whatever I want. I can refuse entry to all members of a particular race, or religion or whatever I want. You might think me racist, or phobic or whatever, but I can still do it without any legal recourse. Because I am a human and have human rights. A business simply cannot do that. Because the business is not a human and therefore does not have the same rights as me.

When the business used to be centrally funded it couldn't.

Now it is funded by the students (many of whom will never pay back the loans of course) they play to the loudest and most aggressive tune.

That example bears no relation to the one that started the conversation. Olives are a relatively neutral topic, no one was trying to put up a sign and there was no initial invite then a disinvite. So you are not making a relevant point. Is anyone saying that such a simple issue is not freedom of speech? This is what I mean by simplification. It's like saying that people have the right to choose what colour pants they wear and then trying to use that as am argument to suggest that they also have the right to choose whether to pay taxes.

For those staying on topic, I have found your ideas really interesting and informative. Sometimes attempts at a derail are actually really useful because it prompts others to share thoughts and ideas which help think deeper about important issues. In this instance it's helped me better understand the ways in which censorship is hampering education.