Kathleen Stock on academic freedom

[BeansandRice]

Academics and freedom of speech

I'm reading this and literally shaking. My story is in there - one of so many - I didn't realise there are so many women who've had to go through what I went through.

It is very scary, reading how many feminists (I'm not going to add "gender critical" as gender critical is what feminism is ) have been shut down, doxxed, and faced with students (and sometimes not even students) attempts to get them sacked.

Thanks to @DocStockk for collecting them, and continuing to speak out.

Extremely important point:

There is another incident I would like to mention, that I feel is really important in light of the typical accusations that signatories of such letters are all white and racist, amongst other things. The way I found out about the Stonewall HE guidance is that it was sent to me by a junior colleague who got it from her departmental Equal Opportunities Liaison Officer. This colleague is a Black woman who felt she could not speak out about her concerns. As is well documented, the institutional racism in British academia and beyond means that Black women face significant challenges and obstacles to promotion, so they are far less likely to be found in senior academic positions. And because the personal and professional risks of speaking out on this issue are so high, it is more likely to be academics in secure, more senior positions, who are also less vulnerable because of not being in already marginalised groups, who do so. So, yes, no surprise really that most of the signatories are white; there’s intersectionality for you.”

Very depressing reading - and the most depressing thing of all is that most of those academics who spoke up (or re-tweeted etc) in the past are no longer speaking and are now being careful to toe the line. They have been silenced.

They haven’t all been silenced and more and more people are coming forward.

I hope you're right, but in the vast majority of those testimonies the academics said they are now being quiet and some even said they felt ashamed but were putting their careers first.

That is a terrifying read. Almost all women, as far as I could see.

I agree that some of the self-congratulatory academics, who loudly proclaim how “inclusive” and “supportive” they are, should be confronted with evidence of this intellectual totalitarianism.

Also, Kathleen Stock doesn’t appear to have tweeted this, does she?

@GCAcademic

"That’s my experience too. I broke it to my colleague yesterday that lesbians can now have a penis and that if she was to stand in the middle of the campus and proclaim otherwise there would be calls for her sacking. She was horrified."

I considered going to a work LGBT promotional even yesterday with my "message";
"lesbians dont have penises"
I would expect to have been put up for a disciplinary if I had, it is officially insane.

I sent something that has recently happened to me to Kathleen but am not seeing it in the article. Anyway, I'm happy NOT to be anonymous. I really don't care.

I will not say who, but I was sent minutes from a meeting where my social media activities were discussed. It was suggested that someone discuss my Twitter account with me "especially if I wish to remain in academia." Well, no-one has spoken to me other than to be supportive. And as for the ridiculous comment about wishing to remain in academia, no I do not. Philosophy is an ABSOLUTE STATE.

I cannot cope with Twitter just now due to the behaviour of a small group of bullying mentalists, but normal service will eventually resume.

Fucking hell. I am so angry and upset after reading this.

If freedom of belief does mean anything in law, could a class action be put together?

Philosophy is an ABSOLUTE STATE.
It really is. It's horrifying and fascinating. Someone should write about how a whole load of people whose actual job it is to examine arguments decided that examining arguments was tantamount to murder (I take it that's the same as 'denying the existence of people', they certainly run around screaming as if it is).

I have read all of these testimonials and I just cannot express how deeply distressing I find this. I've said it before, but I grew up in a totalitarian state where anyone even suspected of subversive thought on the prevailing orthodoxy on any given topic was subjected to this kind of hostile and chilling environment.

Students were encouraged to denounce their teachers, colleagues reported their fellow colleagues and management took any and all accusations of the slightest deviation from accepted doctrine seriously (even and especially when they privately agreed with the opinions expressed - not to investigate wrongthink was in and of itself suspect).

If you managed to defend yourself against the specific accusation levelled against you, the investigation itself stained your reputation and if your colleagues knew what was good for them, they distanced themselves from you.

To now read that academics at UK institutions have to contend with similar treatment if they wish to express any criticism, however mild, of gender ideology and legislation, that truly frightens me.

The country of my birth wasn't set up to be like that. It slid into it, bit by bit, unnoticed by most, from a progressive idea into compelled speech and thoughtcrime that in the end oppressed us all.

Judging from these testimonials, we seem to be much further down that same path than I feared.

I'm despairing.

Have read the link in the OP:

Academics and freedom of speech

And have RTFT to now.

Fucking hell, it is alarming. This is supposed to be Higher Education. Fucking hell.

to all women who are caught up in this.

I'm employed, but not anywhere near academia. Is there anything we can do to help?

Shocked. And full of admiration for Kathleen - I very much hope her institution continues to back her up. Some seem from those examples to be crumbling.

Good way to support is to send supportive emails to these women and to write to your old universities if there’s any controversy there (Jenni Murray building etc...).

I'm new to MN, though I've been lurking for some time. Kathleen Stock's Medium post has finally convinced me to come off Twitter, which is poisonous, toxic and depressing when it comes to these matters. I'm an academic in a British Uni and have been a bit outspoken with colleagues, but now feel I have to keep my head down as I have too much to risk. I'm not a brave person like Kathleen or Rosa Freedman, etc, and do feel a coward.

When I've spoken to academic colleagues about this the response is very mixed. Some feel the same way, others clearly just don't want to talk about it; and some just don't really know what's going on but want to be 'kind' and 'empathetic'. These are the sort of people who signed Pennock Dodds letter. At my institution it is currently not too bad - and my sense is that more elite institutions (Russell Grouo, Oxbridge, more pre-92s) are at the sharp end of this - although I'm sure it is spreading through universities.

The whole thing is upsetting and I feel quite depressed about it. Like most of us, I've always felt empathy for what used to be called transsexual people (and have previously had transsexual students) but I can't see how anyone who really looks into this would not be concerned about self-I'd, and particularly the ficus on children. I hope you don't mind me joining you on MN but I feel I need somewhere to vent at times, and Twitter is fast becoming a no go zone.

Welcome LateBloomer it's always great to have more academics speaking here. I'm not one myself but I enjoy the thoughtful, reasoned posts and the insight into what is happening in our academic institutions.

(nc for this).

I wish I could say I was surprised by this, but I'm not. I knew something was up at my institution when one of the first outputs of a new research cluster focusing on social justice and jurisprudence was about transgender rights.

That was five years ago, I think. I remember wondering why, of all the issues concerning social justice and the law, transgender issues were the first concern. And I already had questions about the issue as a local personality had just come out as a transwoman and I couldn't comprehend the logic of the position that "one knows one is a woman because one feels like one" when it was impossible to know what if felt like to be a woman if one wasn't one. It seemed to be a processing error to me, and I couldn't figure out why no-one was pointing this out.

Now I'm of the opinion that the movement is intentionally nihilistic, and designed to reinstate the primacy of the elite white male in Western society. It has the same motivations as the alt-right, but because it couches its activism and quest for social and cultural upheaval in the context of human rights for a group without privilege, it's been adopted as a progressive movement.

It will, unfortunately, do extraordinary damage to universities if not stopped in its tracks. It will affect recruitment, particularly international, and I suspect there will be a sizable domestic impact as well. It makes western academia look like a bunch of idiots, which I suspect is possibly the intention.

I probably ought to add that it was one of the reasons why I left that institution. It seemed, to me, to be evidence of disordered thinking, and I didn't want to be associated with a university where that was acceptable.

Noticeably, the situation began at a point where there was significant change in academic leadership due to professorial retirement.

(Sorry for any obscurity. I'm intentionally being a little vague).

Dreamhat You say I'm of the opinion that the movement is intentionally nihilistic, and designed to reinstate the primacy of the elite white male in Western society. I'm under the impression that most people - in politics, education etc - supportive of it genuinely believe it is progressive. I mean, Judith Butler is in reality horribly nihilistic, but I don't think she is intentionally or self-consciously so, I think she believes she's advocating greater freedom.

If you believe the movement is intentionally misleading about its real aims, and that the change happened when there was a significant change in academic leadership at your uni - you seem to be saying that you believe someone managed to get key positions, with the express intention of changing the culture there. Is that right, or have I misunderstood?

This is horrific. And I put my hand up as someone who turned down a university role recently (as a trainer in my field) because I didn't want to have to endure this McCarthyist environment.

Mermoose,

TRA stopped being about individuals with gender dysphoria a long time ago, imv. Instead, it's become a tool to attack all manner of institutions, entities and individuals. It's become about power, and using that power to intimidate and destroy structures that form the basis of our civil society.

I'm aware people believe it's a progressive movement, but when you get such an obvious clash between postmodern "personal truths" and absolute truth, inherent in this ideology's obsession with erasion of biological sex class from culture, you really have to examine what the outcome will be.

And that outcome will be not progressive whatsoever, at least not in the sense we understand progressiveness.

If Anne Widdecombe and Norman Tebbit could grasp the implications of such changes years ago, then it's rather embarrassing that so many in academia cannot.

What I meant was that the creation of the research cluster occurred pretty much immediately after a new individual took a senior leadership role (an external appointee). This was also at a time when a number of professors in disciplines both within and around the area of research retired.

My head says the cluster was created to chase funding, but my gut tells me there were some vested interests.

I very much agree with that dreamhat

If you haven't already seen it this thread may interest you.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3541908-Regulatory-capture

Thanks OvaHere, I'll have a look at that thread.
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, how likely is it that people pushing these policies - eg, the person Dreamhat mentions, in the senior leadership role - are doing so fully aware that they are implementing regressive policies under the guise of progressiveness.

I just listened to this, Maya Forstater had tweeted it. It's Bret Weinstein talking about the culture of silencing in universities.

If you're involved in universities Goosefoot then I'm sure you'll know lots about this and have easy access to find out any further information. I know these courageous individuals will look forward to seeing you stand alongside them.

It seems like you have some other issue here.

I am not sure that I think it's all about reinstating white male supremacy, specifically. In general I think most of what is going on in identity politics in universities and the political sphere is about creating supremacy, but it's all kinds of groups competing for it along the same lines. TRA ideology does tend to be directed to male supremacy but the bigger picture is important as well, these different projects are very much connected.