The struggle for free speech in our universities
This draws on an article with the above title from The Bulletin, produced by Affinity’s Social Issues Team.
In February 2021, the Dean of Students at Chicago University wrote to new students. The letter included the following:
‘Once here you will discover that one of the University of Chicago’s defining characteristics is our commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression. Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn, without fear of censorship. Civility and mutual respect are vital to all of us, and freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others. You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.
‘Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings’, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.
‘Fostering the free exchange of ideas reinforces a related University priority – building a campus that welcomes people of all backgrounds. Diversity of opinion and background is a fundamental strength of our community. The members of our community must have the freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas.”
Clearly, this was written against a background of, and concern about, the stifling of free speech and debate. It offers a very refreshing antidote to much of what is going in in universities in many parts of the Westerern world, including here in the UK.
Oxford University may claim to be committed to freedom of speech, but,
‘Selina Todd, professor of modern history at the university, reports harassment and intimidation over several years following her suggestion that being transgender was a modern phenomenon. Academics and students signed a letter labelling her as ‘transphobic’. She reports her reputation and research is constantly smeared and undermined and that the situation is critical.’
With respect of current gender orthodoxy,
‘In a letter to The Sunday Times of 17 October 2021, 240 academics from a wide range of universities, including those at London, Oxford, Cambridge, Essex, Manchester, York, Durham and the Open University, called on Baroness Falkner as Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to undertake a review of policies and practices in UK universities that impose a radical gender orthodoxy and discriminate against those who recognise that sex matters. The letter was under the banner of the organisation Sex Matters, set up ‘to reestablish that sex matters in rules, laws, policies, language and culture’. The organsation has currently logged over ninety news reports of bullying, harassment and no-platforming at UK universities since 2016 relating to those who question transgender orthodoxy.’
Also in October 2021,
‘Over 220 legal academics signed an open letter in support of Sussex University’s defence of academic freedom, following the much-publicised case of Kathleen Stock. A similar open letter of support for the university’s stance was signed by 240 UK philosophers. Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, does not believe people can change their biological sex, an opinion she has been vocal about in her academic work and on social media. Critics have accused her of being transphobic.’
Those who seek to stifle free speech and vigorous debate should recall the powerful words of John Stewart Mill, in his 1859 essay On Liberty:
‘If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.’
[The article then goes on to examine the postmodern roots of this stifling of free speech, the relevance of political ideologies, and perceptions of different universities’ policies and practices.]
The article concludes by asking, ‘What can we do?’ It answers:
‘It behoves Christians to be informed about the issues surrounding freedom of expression and to understand what this means now (for example, the Christian Legal Centre received 895 enquiries from Christians in 2020, a significant number of which came from those who were facing or had faced disciplinary action in relation to homosexuality and gender identity) and what it may well mean in the future for their ability to proclaim, discuss and represent biblical truth and views. They should seek to challenge this decline of common sense graciously and persuasively, picking their battles wisely and supporting those who need to challenge cases in the courts. Christian leaders and churches should gear up to the threat and act accordingly. They should not leave themselves open to the charge of inattention and inaction as they were when the 1967 Abortion Act was passed.’