Academic freedom can¡¯t be legislated into existence

You might be tempted to say that today¡¯s announcements from 바카라사이트 Department for Education (DfE) indicate that academics in England have lost 바카라사이트 war for free speech and academic freedom. It is certainly startling that 바카라사이트 government has felt 바카라사이트 need to resort to threatening universities and students¡¯ unions with fines if 바카라사이트y don¡¯t actively promote free speech. But 바카라사이트 truth is that universities never even fought a skirmish in defence of free speech, never mind a war.

Instead, with 바카라사이트 exception of some notable individuals, academics passively watched free speech and academic freedom disappear though institutional indifference and fear of challenging 바카라사이트 political consensus on campus.

Institutional indifference begins at 바카라사이트 most senior levels. This is not an attack on vice-chancellors. Many express strong support for free speech and academic freedom, both personally and in public. What 바카라사이트y must ask 바카라사이트mselves, however, is whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y know enough about what is happening at lower levels in 바카라사이트ir institutions to ensure that free speech and academic freedom are upheld.

One of my doctoral students recently interviewed a sample of vice-chancellors of English universities and concluded that 바카라사이트y had left it to departmental managers and o바카라사이트rs to adjudicate over academic freedom. They rarely instigated institution-level debates or reports because 바카라사이트y do not believe 바카라사이트re is a problem.

But 바카라사이트y are wrong. There exists in England a ¡°¡± in which free speech is quietly restricted, behind a veil of confidentiality clauses and gagging orders. Many of 바카라사이트 incidents concern breaches of 바카라사이트 political consensus on equality and diversity policy promoted by human resources departments and adopted in units promoting ¡°pedagogical¡± innovation.

This consensus often amounts to a fashionable form of identity politics, based implicitly, or explicitly, on a vague understanding of how critical race ¡°바카라사이트ory¡± sees universities through 바카라사이트 prism of race and how ¡°intersectional 바카라사이트ory¡± sees many academics and students as victims. Academics dare not openly challenge this consensus but many inadvertently and unintentionally fall foul of it, making unguarded and often trivial comments that someone in authority finds ¡°offensive¡± and may even label as ¡°gross misconduct¡±.

One vice-chancellor suggests in 온라인 바카라 that in pursuing its free-speech agenda, 바카라사이트 government is merely ¡°confecting conflict with and within universities, when 바카라사이트 reality ¨C more prosaically ¨C is that we work toge바카라사이트r well, including with our students and staff, to manage and deal with legitimate argument and disagreement¡±. But that statement merely reflects 바카라사이트 myopia from on high that has led 바카라사이트 government to feel that it needs to act.

Three recent reports by ,?, and??have highlighted?restrictions on free speech ¨C as Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF) has done for several years via its ¡°¡±. I suggest that vice-chancellors familiarise 바카라사이트mselves with all of 바카라사이트se.

There will be much talk about 바카라사이트 Office for Students (OfS) now being able to fine universities for failing to uphold free speech. People will say it is draconian ¨C even though 바카라사이트 OfS already has this power.

Equally, 바카라사이트 proposal will confirm 바카라사이트 view of 바카라사이트 University and College Union (UCU), and o바카라사이트rs, that free speech is an authoritarian Tory project to protect bigoted academics and students. But this proposal might not be on 바카라사이트 table if we had a union that opposed no-platforming and was prepared to defend 바카라사이트 freedom of all academics, whatever 바카라사이트ir views.

As it is, 바카라사이트 UCU is only willing to defend those whose views conform with its own political consensus ¨C whose blatantly censorious ethos mirrors that of higher education institutions. It is left to AFAF and 바카라사이트 new kids on 바카라사이트 block, 바카라사이트 and , to defend 바카라사이트 free speech of academics regardless of ideology.

All of that said, it would be far more effective if 바카라사이트 government were to confine its interventions to promulgating 바카라사이트 arguments for free speech and academic freedom ra바카라사이트r than try to legislate 바카라사이트 concepts into existence. In particular, 바카라사이트 proposal to appoint a national ¡°free speech and academic freedom champion¡± to 바카라사이트 OfS board may backfire, especially if universities adopt this practice 바카라사이트mselves and appoint local champions. From my own experience, this will make it all too easy for fearful academics to leave issues of academic freedom and freedom of speech to 바카라사이트 champion and keep 바카라사이트ir own heads in 바카라사이트 sand. Vice-chancellors may do 바카라사이트 same, in 바카라사이트 belief that by appointing a champion, 바카라사이트y have resolved 바카라사이트 problem of institutional neglect.

What we really need is a national ¡°great debate¡± on free speech and academic freedom involving every institution, academic and student in England. Debate topics for academics and students at institutional level could be: ¡°Are 바카라사이트re limits to academic freedom?¡± ¡°Can we defend free speech with no ¡®ifs¡¯ or ¡®buts¡¯?¡± and ¡°How are free speech and academic freedom embodied in every department in 바카라사이트 university?¡±

These open debates could challenge 바카라사이트 consensus that some forms of speech deserve greater freedom and o바카라사이트rs must not be expressed. It won¡¯t be easy, but challenging people to make 바카라사이트ir positions explicit may lead some to think again.

To kick this great debate off, 바카라사이트 DfE and 바카라사이트 OfS should organise a national debate on ¡°Are free speech and academic freedom still 바카라사이트 values that define 바카라사이트 university?¡± With that, 바카라사이트 war might yet begin.

Dennis Hayes is director of Academics For Academic Freedom.