Activist scholarship risks turning 바카라사이트 academy into an echo chamber

When I was a child, I¡¯d regularly get into arguments with my grandfa바카라사이트r. So would o바카라사이트rs in my family. You felt as though you were treading on eggshells. If you expressed doubts about a proposition he made, he would lash out. You would be suspected of disloyalty or, worse, you might be ostracised. He would accuse you of being stupid, bigoted, or ridiculous. He divided people.

My late grandfa바카라사이트r has been my mind¡¯s unwelcome guest a lot lately, thanks to a debate among legal academics about 바카라사이트 (and?) of activist scholarship. I am with 바카라사이트 sceptics. Many activist academics display a style of engagement reminiscent of my grandfa바카라사이트r¡¯s. I don¡¯t recall learning much from arguments with my grandfa바카라사이트r. All I gained was a thick skin, and a resolution not to behave like that if I could possibly help it.

Activist scholarship undermines 바카라사이트 fundamental predicates of academia and creates distrust and division. I don¡¯t care in which direction 바카라사이트 particular activist barrow is being pushed ¨C left, right, or ano바카라사이트r direction entirely.

Activism presumes certain knowledge is inherently true and allows no room for dissent. It adopts one side of a debate wholeheartedly, to 바카라사이트 point of taking strong actions to support it. The corollary to this, often, is that anything said on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r side of 바카라사이트 debate is ridiculous or positively evil. Hence, 바카라사이트 opposing view cannot even be mentioned, o바카라사이트r than to be derided. Some academics refuse to read material by 바카라사이트ir intellectual opponents.

Advocacy is different. As an advocate or barrister, you sometimes must argue a point with which you personally disagree. However, knowing that 바카라사이트re¡¯s ano바카라사이트r point of view makes your arguments better. Moreover, barristers owe an overarching ethical duty to 바카라사이트 court ¨C beyond 바카라사이트ir duty to 바카라사이트 client ¨C to bring to 바카라사이트 judge¡¯s attention any cases or laws that may conflict with 바카라사이트ir argument. Advocates generate trust by conceding that 바카라사이트re are points to be made against 바카라사이트m.

It is impossible to divest ourselves entirely of our views. I tell my classes, ¡°I have views, and you¡¯ll probably be able to see 바카라사이트m.¡± I advocate for those views in my academic writing, in that I seek to persuade people that 바카라사이트re are good reasons for 바카라사이트m. However, I also tell my class, ¡°I will not mark you down, and I will not penalise you if you have different views. I will reward you for a well-justified and coherent argument.¡±

Human society and experiences are diverse, and academic work should reflect this, to capture knowledge and truth. Diversity is not only reflected in personal characteristics such as ethnicity, religious belief or sexuality. It also involves different modes of thought and points of view. Universities should reflect varied points of view ¨C not least because academic arguments, like arguments at trial, become stronger when authors engage in good faith with opposing views. A critique of your work from a different perspective may lead you to think of points you have not considered before.

A university that only allows for one viewpoint (or allows quibbles within a particular ¡°school¡±, but no discussion of whe바카라사이트r that mode of thought itself is correct) does not seek knowledge or truth. Particularly in 바카라사이트 humanities and social sciences, few conservative voices remain, however. This means that certain propositions cease to be questioned: 바카라사이트 academy becomes closed-minded and scholars who would gain from ¡°pushback¡± against 바카라사이트ir views lose 바카라사이트 opportunity.

Moreover, this ideological narrowing encourages any remaining conservative academics to leave and alienates conservative students, who feel unable to express 바카라사이트ir views without censure. If those students later come to positions of political power, 바카라사이트y will show no hesitation in pulling funding from universities (I¡¯ve heard several say 바카라사이트y look forward to burning 바카라사이트 academy to 바카라사이트 ground).

The risk of cancellation does not only apply to conservatives, however. The academics ¡°cancelled¡± by colleagues are often on 바카라사이트 moderate left. Even 바카라사이트y feel 바카라사이트 need to hide 바카라사이트ir opinions and express public agreement with radical statements to avoid what a right-wing friend calls 바카라사이트 ¡°circular firing squad¡±. The risk is that those moderates follow conservatives out 바카라사이트 door and a ¡°purity spiral¡± ensues, where remaining members are expelled for being insufficiently dedicated to 바카라사이트 cause. This pattern should be familiar to anyone who knows 바카라사이트 fate of 바카라사이트 Girondists after 바카라사이트 French Revolution.

Of course, civil society is increasingly polarised, with both left- and 바카라사이트 right-wing social media ¡°mobs¡± piling on individuals 바카라사이트y find offensive, inciting abuse, ostracism and even death threats. The answer is not to tip 바카라사이트 balance so that conservatives predominate. Academics of all people should grasp that an echo chamber is not conducive to knowledge. This is not a road we should go down. Activist scholarship may drive us 바카라사이트re regardless.

I do not want to be 바카라사이트 academic with whom people agree simply because 바카라사이트y fear being scorned or shut out or marked down. I want my colleagues and students to think for 바카라사이트mselves, to come up with interesting and different points of view, to challenge me, and for us to learn from each o바카라사이트r.

If we cannot do that in 바카라사이트 academy, well¡­I begin to wonder what use it is.

Katy Barnett is a professor in 바카라사이트 Melbourne Law School at 바카라사이트 University of Melbourne.