Many Academics DO Support Academic Freedom!

Last week was a big week for free speech and academic freedom controversies, with Oxford professor Selina Todd no-platformed from an International Women’s Day conference at Exeter College, Oxford, then Amber Rudd told she could no longer speak at a UN Women Society event on women in politics at the same university. The backlash has been severe, with the government apparently planning to bring forward legislation to enforce freedom of speech on campus.

The image promoted in much of the media, and circulating on social media, is that all academics are ban-happy authoritarians who need a firm slap from government. That is very far from the case. UCU for Academic Freedom is a campaign by academics themselves to put UCU onto the right side of this debate. And there is a growing pushback from other pro-free-speech academics, which is compelling some university managers to uphold fundamental freedoms. Below, we reproduce an open letter signed by scholars at the University of Kent, where some of those ban-happy authoritarians have been trying to no-platform Selina Todd – without success. The university administration has, rightly, rejected calls to cancel her lecture, while other academics are rallying around Prof Todd and the local organisers in the English department.

As staff working at a University presently subject to a dispute about “no platform”, we would suggest it is actually very important not to underestimate the problem of attacks on free speech, as they emerge from within the campus. Where we work, an upcoming invited lecture by the historian Selina Todd has been subject to ongoing efforts to prevent it going ahead. The University’s leadership has decided, in line with the University’s free speech policies, that the invitation to her should not be rescinded; however, an Open Letter opposing this has since been circulated condemning the decision, is attracting support, and is calling for the University to, “recognise that transphobic speech is hate speech that puts members of our trans and non-binary community at further risk”. There is a very real difference of opinion that has to be resolved, somehow.

We work across disciplines at the University of Kent but are united in support of the leadership’s decision to take the free speech policy seriously and uphold the invitation. Todd is coming to speak about her latest book, about the playwright Shelagh Delaney, but clearly the situation that now prevails is one where her being able to do so cannot be assumed but rather has to be argued for, including by us. In our view, the idea she should not be permitted to do so because of her views on the distinction between sex and gender is regressive. It constitutes an argument that she, and by extension anyone who shares her views, should be prevented from taking part in academic life, is an attack on the value of toleration that forms the cornerstone of academic freedom, but this now has to be actively restated. As many have now noted it is also quite wrong to pathologise Todd’s views as “phobic” and suggest they are “hateful” or place others “at risk”. They are not, but what is contrary to the values of a University is the implication that research agendas based on the recognition of the significance of sex discrimination for example in labour markets and in a raft of issues in developing world countries are not worthwhile.

Given the certainty that episodes like this will continue, we hope the leadership at other Universities will grasp the importance of what is now at stake, take a leaf out of Kent’s book, and uphold academic freedom robustly and at any given opportunity.

Yours Sincerely,

Ellie Lee, Professor of Family and Parenting Research, SSPSSR, University of Kent

Cathy Waters, Professor of English, School of English, University of Kent

Dr Bashir Abu-Manneh, Reader in Post-Colonial Literature, School of English, University of Kent

Linus Peitz, Associate Lecturer, School of Psychology, University of Kent

David Williams, Professor of Developmental Psychology and Head of School of Psychology, University of Kent

Dr Miguel Alexiades, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, University of Kent

Dr Amanda Gosling, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Kent

Dr Ian Bride, Senior Lecturer in Biodiversity Management, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent

Dr Sian Lewis-Anthony, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Kent

Dr Gianluca Marcelli, Lecturer in Engineering, School of Engineering and Digital Arts, University of Kent, University of Kent

Dr Gill Draper, Associate Lecturer, School of History, University of Kent

Michelle McCarthy, Professor in Learning Disabilities, Tizard Centre, SSPSSR, University of Kent

Janet Montefiore, Professor Emerita of 20thCentury English Literature, School of English, University of Kent

D Matthew Watkins, Educational Support Assistant, University of Kent

Dr Jim Butcher, Reader, School of Sports Sciences, Tourism, Hospitality and Events, Canterbury Christ Church University

Murray Smith, Professor of Film, School of Arts, University of Kent

Dr Philip Cunliffe, Senior Lecturer in International Conflict, School of Politics,

University of Kent

Matthew Goodwin, Professor of Politics and International Relations, School of Politics, University of Kent

Dr Jennie Bristow, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University

Jane Wood, Professor of Forensic Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Kent

Dr Simon Cottee, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, University of Kent

Dr Jan Macvarish, Visiting Research Fellow, SSPSSR, University of Kent

Larry Ray, Professor of Sociology, SSPSSR, University of Kent

Dr Luke Buchanan-Hodgman, Lecturer in Economics, Department of Economics, University of Kent

Grace Shore Banks, Recruitment and Marketing Co-ordinator, School of Economics, University of Kent

Dr Kristof Dhont, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Kent

Alina Salmen, Associate Lecturer, School of Psychology, University of Kent

Aino Petterson, Associate Lecturer, School of Psychology, University of Kent

Aimilia Kalitsounaki, Associate Lecturer, School of Psychology, University of Kent

Jesse O’Hanley, Professor of Environmental Systems Management, Kent Business School, University of Kent

Dr Adelina Gschwandtner, Lecturer in Economics, School of Economics, University of Kent

Dr Jim Ang, Senior Lecturer in Multimedia and Digital Systems, School of Engineering and Digital Arts, University of Kent

Dr Philippos Assimakopoulos, Lecturer in Electronic Systems, School of Engineering and Digital Arts, University of Kent

Chima Rickards, PhD student, School of Economics, University of Kent

Chrissie Rogers, Professor of Sociology, Director of Tizard Centre, SSPSSR, University of Kent

Dr Magali-Fleur Barnoux, Lecturer in Forensic Psychology and Intellectual and Developmental Disability, Tizard Centre, SSPSSR, University of Kent

A response to “UCU Election Candidates’ Statement on Academic Freedom and Trans Inclusion”

Apparently in response to our request to current election candidates to state their position on HE32, a group led by Mark Pendleton has published a statement on Medium.

The statement is ultimately founded on a “straw man” argument that misrepresents threats to academic freedom. It asserts that the “rights of transgender, non-binary and gender diverse people to self-identify in no way threatens academic freedom… We unreservedly reject as unfounded claims that posit that inclusion and respect of transgender, non-binary and gender diverse people is in opposition to academic freedom”.

No one is arguing otherwise, and certainly not UCU for Academic Freedom. Rather, as our list of examples unequivocally demonstrate, what is a threat to academic freedom is the insistence that there can be “no debate” over whether self-identification is the only basis on which individuals can be categorised as men, women or otherwise, accompanied by the accusation that attempts to debate this issue can only be motivated by “transphobia” and must be silenced. This position leaves no space for genuine discussion, nuance, or the possibility of examining the evidence and finding ways forward that will enhance everyone’s rights in a changing world. Such a position closes down genuine engagement, and when it is loudly asserted and even enforced (through intimidation and threats) in universities, academic freedom is among the casualties.

The insistence that there be “no debate” also flies in the face of reality. The right to self-identity is far from established or universally agreed. Proposed legislative change is on hold in England and Wales and subject to public consultation in Scotland: that is, we are actively being invited to debate this issue. Academics have a public duty to contribute to this debate. There are certainly good arguments to support a process of self-identification, but scholars in a range of disciplines have also argued that we need to have careful, evidence-based discussion of the effects of changing the legislation on women’s sex-based rights and on the interaction between a changed Gender Recognition Act and the existing Equality Act (2010).Insisting that such discussion is illegitimate is a threat to academic freedom. So is the repellent insinuation that only “neo-fascists and transphobes” would wish to discuss these matters.

The statement is also highly selective in what it identifies as threats to academic freedom. We entirely agree that casualisation, corporatisation, the “hostile environment” and Prevent are important threats. But so, too, are attacks on the academic freedom of UCU members whose research, teaching and public engagement includes critical discussion of sex and gender identity. The statement wrongly dismisses these attacks as “manufactured controversies” and, by its reference to “neo-fascists and transphobes”, implicitly sides against the (mostly female) human rights experts, philosophers, historians, educationalists, clinicians, social policy analysts and others who find themselves targeted for their gender-critical views.

Conversely, our union’s Statement Reaffirming UCU’s Commitment to Trans Inclusion states as follows:

UCU is aware that the debate around gender identity has in some quarters become bitterly divisive. Our strength is to bring members together and to build bridges rooted in our values of equality. UCU opposes any violence, intimidation, bullying or disrespect towards any group that faces discrimination, and from whichever quarter.

We entirely agree. The discussion of sex and gender identity has become far too fractious. But it cannot be made more civilised by intimidating, insulting or demonising academics who argue in their teaching and research that we need to consider women’s sex-based rights. Supporting UCU members who are targeted for their gender-critical views, and seeking to provide spaces for respectful discussion, would do far more to reduce the temperature than repeatedly declaring those members’ speech hateful and insisting that their academic freedom should be curtailed.

It’s time for those who are elected to office in UCU to step up to the plate. We want to see a robust defence of academic freedom, and action to end the campaigns against some of our members. We encourage all candidates currently standing for election to look beyond empty slogans and fundamentalist calls to shut down discussion, and we encourage members to prioritise academic freedom when it comes to voting.