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.