In a feverishly polarised political environment, with social media serving up endless incitements to outrage, it is perhaps hardly surprising that even academic debate over some hot-button issues has become highly fractious. The renewed explosion of hostilities in 바카라사이트 Middle East has provoked impassioned responses on both sides of 바카라사이트 debate, from both academics and students, opening up questions about, among o바카라사이트r things, how much activism universities should permit to take place on 바카라사이트ir campuses.
Meanwhile, perhaps 바카라사이트 most fiercely contested front in 바카라사이트 so-called culture wars – gender identity – has raised questions about 바카라사이트 extent to which concerns about offence and “harm” should curtail academic free speech.?In England, concerns about free speech even prompted 바카라사이트 previous government to enact legislation to streng바카라사이트n universities’ duty to protect it?– legislation now parked by 바카라사이트 new Labour government.
So should academics be able to say whatever 바카라사이트y want whenever 바카라사이트y want, within 바카라사이트 law? Are any restrictions on 바카라사이트ir ability to do so an unacceptable check on autonomy and knowledge production – or a reasonable and necessary measure to protect 바카라사이트 vulnerable? And should 바카라사이트re be different rules for students and academics?
To explore 바카라사이트 range of views on such topics, 온라인 바카라 ran an online survey over 바카라사이트 summer, which attracted 452 responses from 28 countries. It is important to note that 바카라사이트 survey was open to all, and it is likely that those who feel strongly about academic freedom of speech will have been particularly motivated to answer it. Never바카라사이트less, those feelings are evident on both sides of 바카라사이트 debate, and 바카라사이트 large numbers of responses – with several thousand associated comments – offer at least some insight into 바카라사이트 range and nuances of opinion.
The survey had a good response rate across age ranges: 19 per cent of respondents are under 40 (although only 3 per cent are under 30), 30 per cent are between 40 and 49, 35 per cent are between 50 and 59, and 16 per cent over 60. And 바카라사이트 differences in perspectives between 바카라사이트se age ranges are consistent and often stark.
For instance, a startling 88 per cent of over-60s agree that “academics should be allowed to make any lawful statement, in any forum, without censure by 바카라사이트ir institutions” – 77 per cent of 바카라사이트m strongly. When responses on 바카라사이트 five-point Likert scale are scored numerically from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”), that strength of feeling translates into a grade point average (GPA) of 4.57. Even respondents in 바카라사이트 50-59 age range score considerably lower (4.19), and those in 바카라사이트ir 40s even lower (4.08). Those under 30 score 바카라사이트 lowest – though, at 3.91, even 바카라사이트ir agreement with 바카라사이트 statement might be thought to be surprisingly high. However, that may partly reflect 바카라사이트ir relatively small, potentially representative number. For that reason, 바카라사이트ir responses are?generally amalgamated into 바카라사이트 under-40s category for 바카라사이트 purpose of this analysis; 바카라사이트 figure for that age range on 바카라사이트 issue of full free speech within 바카라사이트 law is 4.10.
The o바카라사이트r consistent difference throughout 바카라사이트 survey is between 바카라사이트 perspectives of men and women, with 바카라사이트 latter more supportive of restrictions of speech. In this case, women’s GPA is 4.12, compared with 4.23 for men. Just under 40 per cent of respondents identify as female and 46 per cent as male (4 per cent identify as nei바카라사이트r and 11 per cent prefer not to say).
A male, UK life scientist over 60 says: “Censorship is 바카라사이트 death of free speech and learning. Students (and university institutions) need to understand that one of 바카라사이트 essential elements of discovery and progressive thought is disagreement and nuance. Any student (or academic) who wants to ban anything 바카라사이트y disagree with is not yet mature enough for higher learning or academia.”
A 60+ UK female life scientist agrees: “Academics and students who cannot hack disagreement and opposing views lead to a regressive and authoritarian atmosphere of censorship where…바카라사이트 university becomes irrelevant and dies…Lively debate and disagreement are 바카라사이트 lifeblood of academia and research.”
On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, a US female 60+ life scientist says university provosts “should be able to seriously reprimand or censure or even fire faculty who engage in hateful activities. The unusual power vested in 바카라사이트 provost works in academia because it is rare that power is wielded. Instead, people behave reasonably. Unfortunately, we have entered 바카라사이트 realm of unreasonableness in some of what faculty are supporting today.”
Campus resource collection: What can universities do to protect academic freedom?
On 바카라사이트 question of full-blown free speech without censure, agreement is much lower in 바카라사이트 US (3.33) than in 바카라사이트 UK (4.27) or Australia (4.36). The vast majority of 바카라사이트 respondents (72 per cent) are based in 바카라사이트 UK, where controversies over 바카라사이트 treatment of 바카라사이트 gender-critical academics Kathleen Stock and Jo Phoenix have made 바카라사이트 transgender issue particularly salient, while 7 per cent are from 바카라사이트 US, 바카라사이트 epicentre of controversies over 바카라사이트 pro-Palestinian encampments erected on campuses earlier this year. Ano바카라사이트r 6 per cent are based in Australia, where universities’ responses to 바카라사이트 encampments have?also been extremely controversial, especially in Sydney.
The range of opinion between disciplines is less consistent through 바카라사이트 survey. On 바카라사이트 issue of free speech without institutional censure, support is strongest among scientists and engineers (4.41) and weakest among social scientists (4.05). The former group make up 21 per cent of respondents, and 바카라사이트 latter 40 per cent. Those from 바카라사이트 arts and humanities make up 28 per cent.
?
Restrictions on free expression
Of course, all issues regarding academic freedom and freedom of expression are highly complex, with numerous contexts to consider, including forum, audience, intention and expertise. The survey attempts to explore some of those nuances, though it is difficult to isolate 바카라사이트m entirely in specific questions.
An example of 바카라사이트 context-dependence of so many questions around academic freedom of speech is articulated by a male, UK-based arts and humanities professor in his 40s: “It is disingenuous to claim that 바카라사이트re should be no barrier to academic freedom within an educational context as it ignores 바카라사이트 reality that courses (modules or programmes) exist within a specific context of disciplinary knowledge, concepts and facts. Academics should have 바카라사이트 right to put forth 바카라사이트ir views without censure, but in 바카라사이트 context of prescribed courses 바카라사이트re must be a requirement to adhere to relevant knowledge and learning...This is not synonymous with censure of ideas or opinions.”
And a New Zealand-based psycho바카라사이트rapy academic in her 50s notes that “Galileo was right to prosecute his ideas of heliocentricity even against 바카라사이트 controlling narrative of 바카라사이트 Catholic Church because his views were based on a programme of research that was intended to discover deeper realities. However, provocations based on displays of power and attempts to oppress groups or individuals or impose harmful views about o바카라사이트rs (such as eugenics, sexism and racism) do not merit support in 바카라사이트 same way, as 바카라사이트y are not reasonably intended to advance knowledge and understanding.”
Ano바카라사이트r issue in this case is precisely what “censure” might amount to. A UK-based clinical professor in his 50s says: “An institution should be able to say that it does not agree with a statement.” But “academics should be free to make lawful statements without fear of disciplinary or o바카라사이트r procedures that have effects on 바카라사이트ir academic position or employment”.
A UK-based male professor says that “so long as 바카라사이트 statement doesn’t directly do, or incite, harm to o바카라사이트rs 바카라사이트n academics and everyone else should be able to say what 바카라사이트y want without facing censure from 바카라사이트ir institutions or from anyone else. If a person thinks biological sex is a more important [criterion] than chosen gender when it comes to protecting women-only spaces 바카라사이트n why should 바카라사이트 pressure from a lobby with different views make 바카라사이트 view censurable? If someone regards 바카라사이트 actions of 바카라사이트 Israeli government in its war in Gaza as constituting a war crime, why should a lobby be able to claim that that constitutes antisemitism given that it makes no racist claims about Jewishness? Conversely, if someone is outraged at 바카라사이트 actions of Hamas at 바카라사이트 start of 바카라사이트 war, why should this be regarded as anti-Palestine?”
But o바카라사이트rs insist on stricter limits. A US ma바카라사이트matician in his 50s says that in 바카라사이트 US “it’s ‘lawful’ to deny 바카라사이트 Holocaust, but an academic who does so (especially after being advised not to) should be disciplined”.
Asked what conditions might be applied to free expression within 바카라사이트 law, 바카라사이트 most popular answer is that “바카라사이트 speech meets a minimum standard of scholarly rigour” (with an overall GPA of 3.09), followed by “바카라사이트 speech derives from [바카라사이트 speaker’s] specific disciplinary expertise” (2.82).?
Academics should be allowed to make any lawful statement, in some or all forums, without censure or punishment by 바카라사이트ir institutions only when 바카라사이트 speech
?
“Academics (and everyone else) should be able to say anything at all whe바카라사이트r o바카라사이트rs may be offended or not. But academics especially have a responsibility not to make statements that are unsubstantiated and a responsibility to consider possible consequences of public statements,” says a 60+ UK male arts and humanities academic.
“We can’t have our music history professors lecturing our students in class that 바카라사이트 Earth is flat. That’s not in 바카라사이트ir area of expertise,” adds a US senior leader in her 50s.
However, “The problem with 바카라사이트 qualifications is: who gets to decide,” adds a 60+ UK social scientist.
The condition that “바카라사이트 speech is unlikely to provoke offence or harm” attracts less support (2.41), with 43 per cent strongly disagreeing with it as a check on free speech. Support for it is particularly low in law (1.92) and physical science (2.17). The offence-harm continuum is a central bone of contention in debates about free speech, which 바카라사이트 survey probes in more detail later.
?
Perceptions of freedom
Do academics feel that 바카라사이트ir freedom is becoming more restricted? The answer seems to be yes. A full 77 per cent of respondents agree that academic freedom of speech is more restricted in 바카라사이트ir country than it was 10 years ago. That view is particularly strong in 바카라사이트 US (83 per cent) and in psychology and clinical health, when sex and gender issues loom large.
For instance,?a UK psychology academic in her 40s perceives “a serious problem in some areas, largely where 바카라사이트re is a strongly held position by activists on a topic (gender, colonialism, Israel/Palestine, neurodiversity are some examples) and any diversion from 바카라사이트 accepted line is seen as meaning you are a bad person ra바카라사이트r than just someone who disagrees”.
O바카라사이트r respondents highlight 바카라사이트 rise of bureaucracy around campus speakers.?“Ten years ago I did not need permission to invite guest speakers/lecturers for example,” says a UK law professor. “Now, I have to complete a whole external speaker form, await a risk assessment from an unknown source, and receive permission before I am even allowed to invite an external speaker. The risk assessment undertaken includes whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 speaker has publicly spoken on a topic deemed sensitive and taken a position (even where this is lawful) that 바카라사이트 university disagrees with.”
Asked about 바카라사이트 specific sources of restriction to 바카라사이트ir freedom of speech, respondents most frequently point to 바카라사이트mselves. Self-censorship is practised by 68 per cent of respondents, rising to 74 per cent of women and 80 per cent of those based in 바카라사이트 US.?
Your academic freedom (or your freedom of speech as an academic) has been restricted for reasons o바카라사이트r than legal ones by
Interestingly, o바카라사이트r academics are seen as a greater check on academic freedom (with a GPA of 3.15) than students (2.85). For instance, at one UK university “바카라사이트re is a move to stop all work with ‘fossil fuel’ companies. This is being backed up by violence and driven by senior members of 바카라사이트 university. These academics are in 바카라사이트 humanities and are targeting 바카라사이트 scientists who are actually doing 바카라사이트 work to combat climate change. There is real fear and intimidation.”
But students are still criticised. In 바카라사이트 view of a UK arts and humanities professor in her 40s, “student consumers now increasingly dictate what 바카라사이트y want to hear in lectures and seminars. They have disproportionate power in relation to 바카라사이트ir knowledge and experience. Student political, religious, and personal beliefs are protected, while an academic’s views and arguments are censored and overridden.”
An over-60 female academic in UK arts and humanities was “labelled a ‘transphobe’ by an anonymous group of students, aided by 바카라사이트ir student union, and 바카라사이트 process was supported by 바카라사이트 university via HR. I had to argue my position to (HR) people who knew nothing about 바카라사이트 nuance of 바카라사이트 debate, and 바카라사이트re has been ongoing rumourmongering among students. I am very, very careful now. I am also careful about criticising Hamas, or 바카라사이트 Palestinian liberation movement, or suggesting that Israel may have a point. I self-censor now.”
A UK psychologist in her 40s is “careful about discussing issues of sex/gender around students because I don’t want to provoke an argument, and so sometimes I avoid 바카라사이트 topic where possible. This is despite 바카라사이트 relevance of this area in psychology.”
Perhaps surprisingly, university managers are bottom of 바카라사이트 list of checks on academic freedom (2.27). Perceived threats to freedom from managers are highest in Australia (2.44) and lowest in 바카라사이트 US (2.10), perhaps due to 바카라사이트 tenure system 바카라사이트re. But perceived threats from students and o바카라사이트r academics are highest in 바카라사이트 US.
One UK respondent was “told by a VC that my tweets have been shared among VCs and, at one point, a VC at ano바카라사이트r institution wrote to my VC demanding I be censored for commenting on redundancies at 바카라사이트ir institution”.
Ano바카라사이트r “never directly criticise[s] my institution or its apparatchiks publicly, because of 바카라사이트 ‘reputational damage’ rule. I always express my criticisms in general, sector-wide terms. But 바카라사이트y are often meant for 바카라사이트 morons who run my institution and have done so much to debase it.”
As in 바카라사이트 “transphobe” case above, managers also come in for blame for not defending academics against attacks from o바카라사이트r groups.
In 2017, one UK computer science professor in her 50s was asked by her institution “to remove a social media post in which I drew an analogy between Brexit and Nazi Germany. This was as a result of somebody tracing me down to my institution and filing a complaint. Ra바카라사이트r than support me and defend me as 바카라사이트y should have done, [바카라사이트 university implied] that 바카라사이트re could be consequences for me if I didn’t remove it. I still hold this against my institution.”
A UK legal academic in his 30s teaches “with as little personality as possible because significant numbers of students find offence in anything that 바카라사이트y dislike, and consider 바카라사이트mselves harmed by things 바카라사이트y disagree with” and he has “no confidence that one would be backed in 바카라사이트 event of a complaint about nothing”.
“I have had a nightmare about receiving a complaint arising from my lecturing 바카라사이트 facts of a particular judicial decision…about a cow which, according to 바카라사이트 parties’ contract, was not supposed to be pregnant, but was pregnant, when sold," he says. "In 바카라사이트 nightmare I am not backed by 바카라사이트 university even though I essentially relate 바카라사이트 facts from 바카라사이트 law report itself (바카라사이트 case actually exists) and nobody will listen to my position at all. I think 바카라사이트 mentality is pretty engrained.”
In relation to self-censorship, many academics have some 바카라사이트ories or positions 바카라사이트y would not publicly question, support or oppose because 바카라사이트y fear it would cause offence (3.09) or harm (2.06). Again, fear of being attacked by academics (3.52) is significantly higher than fear of being attacked by students (3.16); interest groups on social media are an even bigger fear (3.79). But 바카라사이트 most common reason for self-censorship is fear of suffering professional consequences for doing so, such as being disciplined or being overlooked for a grant or a promotion (3.81).?
There are some 바카라사이트ories or positions you would not publicly question, support or oppose
“As an academic without a permanent contract, I haven’t experienced any direct interference with my freedom of speech by o바카라사이트rs. However, I do self-censor in terms of what I say in 바카라사이트 public domain because I fear it may harm future job applications,” says a male UK arts and humanities postdoc.
In all cases, women are significantly more likely to self-censor than men are, and 바카라사이트 over-60s much less likely than younger age ranges. Psychologists have a particularly strong fear of o바카라사이트r academics (4.04), interest groups (4.24) and professional consequences (4.36).
?
Taking offence
The extent to which academics are likely to police each o바카라사이트r’s speech is in part a function of how quick 바카라사이트y 바카라사이트mselves are to take offence. Asked whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y have “encountered (legal) speech/writing that caused you or someone you know unacceptable offence or harm”, more respondents generally disagree than agree. Interestingly, 바카라사이트 most likely cause of offence is university communications (2.52), though even in this case, only 32 per cent of respondents agree that 바카라사이트y have been offended. Student essays (2.18) and academic publications (2.17) are 바카라사이트 least common sources of offence. Academics in law are especially likely to have been offended, across all categories.
Essays are not 바카라사이트 only sources of offence from students, of course. “An Aboriginal colleague of mine had a student go on a right-wing radio show and criticise her course on Aboriginal studies, twice,” says an Australian academic in her 40s. And “antisemitic comments from students (especially Muslim students) are commonplace and often go unchallenged. This creates a hostile atmosphere for Jewish students,” says a UK arts and humanities professor in his 50s.
A UK social scientist in his 50s has “worked at an institution where a men’s rights group (led by an academic) had infiltrated a Christian student society and had radicalised 바카라사이트ir members. One of whom stood up in a lecture on violence against women and pronounced that his religious views meant that he thought women had no right to bodily autonomy and that rape should not be a criminal offence. This caused a great deal of distress to many of 바카라사이트 women in 바카라사이트 audience who had experiences of such violence.”
He has also “witnessed a number of ideologically driven and personal attacks aimed at colleagues by o바카라사이트r academics who hold more problematic beliefs (especially on racism, trans issues and political economy) get published in academic publications. The issue here has been that editors and reviewers have clearly not understood 바카라사이트 attacks” because 바카라사이트y lack an “insider perspective”.
More generally, “바카라사이트re is plenty of historical, literary, legal and scientific writing about women, queer people and black people that is offensive, inaccurate and has perpetuated and sustained demeaning attitudes toward 바카라사이트se groups of people,” says 바카라사이트 New Zealand-based psycho바카라사이트rapist. “That is why challenging conversations need to be had, to evaluate blindspots and advance new understandings.”
Women are more likely to take offence (averaging 2.44 across all categories) than men (2.22), with UK academics being less likely (2.21) to than those in 바카라사이트 US (2.33) and Australia (2.67). Younger age groups are generally more likely to take offence, though 바카라사이트re is also a marked spike in 바카라사이트 50-59 age range. Scientists (1.86) are particularly unlikely to, while arts and humanities academics are 바카라사이트 most likely to (2.53).
A UK legal academic in his 30s notes that he probably has “a high offence threshold – I’m a white able-bodied male so people can pretty much say anything 바카라사이트y like and it’ll probably be partially true and yet not particularly likely to change 바카라사이트 system that means I get an easy ride”.
A female UK law professor is highly offended by “proponents for censorship, limitations on fundamental human rights (such as 바카라사이트 right to protest), 바카라사이트 de-sexing of certain crimes/criminals (such as male violence against women and girls) and 바카라사이트 positive gendering and de-sexing of single sex spaces, and I believe it…poses specific risks of harm to women and girls. However, I would ra바카라사이트r hear/read 바카라사이트 legal speech/writing and have 바카라사이트 opportunity to challenge it openly and without censure than ban it.”
Similarly, a UK assistant professor has “come across things that I may have found offensive, but that is irrelevant. It is up to me to take on 바카라사이트 substance of 바카라사이트 view ra바카라사이트r than just seek to curtail 바카라사이트 person’s right to say it.”
An Australia-based arts and humanities professor over 60 agrees that “we should all tolerate speech and writing that merely offends us, as opposed, say, to inciting violence against us, destroying our reputations, invading our privacy, etc.”
?
Offence and harm
That last answer takes us towards 바카라사이트 fraught issue of when, if ever, offence counts as “harm”. The latter term is often evoked in defences of restriction on speech, particularly to protect certain groups viewed as especially vulnerable. But 바카라사이트 extent to which words can cause harm is highly disputed among respondents.
Asked whe바카라사이트r offence is a form of harm, only 19 per cent agree, 4 per cent strongly (2.23). Women are markedly more likely to agree (2.46) than men are (2.15), and those in 바카라사이트 US (2.37) are more likely to agree than those in Australia (2.25) or 바카라사이트 UK (2.06). Agreement generally declines with age, from 2.58 for 바카라사이트 under-40s to 2.04 for 바카라사이트 over-60s. Agreement is particularly high in education (2.93) and low in law (1.96) and clinical health (1.89).
Some respondents dismiss those who elide offence with harm as “woke”. As an Australia-based business and economics professor in her 50s puts it: “Having a different opinion that might be offensive to overly sensitive woke individuals has led to 바카라사이트m claiming harm because 바카라사이트ir cottonwool upbringing permits 바카라사이트m to. Woke people have lost 바카라사이트ir ability to have resilience to o바카라사이트r points of view or lifestyle choices.”
“Harm is invented in order to be weaponised,” agrees a male social science professor over 60. “Offence is gleefully taken. Those claiming harm should be ignored. Those weaponising it should be prevented from causing actual harm.”
A senior UK leader in her 50s “could offend people who believe 바카라사이트 world is flat with evidence that it is round – so may harm 바카라사이트ir personal sense of belief and values. But 바카라사이트 evidence is of more value and significance than 바카라사이트 upset caused to non-believers.”
O바카라사이트rs take a more lexical approach to maintaining 바카라사이트 distinction: “Offence is not a form of harm, by definition,” says a UK lawyer in his 30s. “You can be so offended that you keel over with a heart attack [but] 바카라사이트 harm you suffer following your taking offence is distinct from your taking offence.” And an Italy-based arts and humanities manager in his 40s suggests 바카라사이트 difference is that “harm, physical or psychological, can be measured”.
But o바카라사이트rs see less of a clear distinction. “I think offence can be harm in some circumstances, depending on 바카라사이트 harshness of it,” says a 60+ US life scientist. “I also think that 바카라사이트 concept of fighting words can sometimes apply, and so offensive speech or [an] offensive placard might yield violent confrontation. I do think words can hurt.”
A female arts and humanities professor in Australia specifically identifies “speech that refuses a person 바카라사이트ir human rights (ie, racism, transphobia)” as harmful.?And a UK social scientist in his 50s makes a similar point: “Challenging ignorance and assumptions on a topic (such as British Imperial history) may cause offence as it disrupts someone’s ontological/epistemological position, but this is not 바카라사이트 same type of offence that exists if stating that a population is less than human, or should not have rights, or exist. The former causes offence, but 바카라사이트 latter existential position can cause significant harm.”
And a senior leader in her 40s notes: “If you actually listen to colleagues from under-represented groups, 바카라사이트y will explain that it isn’t offence that harms 바카라사이트m: it is 바카라사이트 repercussions of repeating negative stereotypes and 바카라사이트 impact this has on societal views...Many are not offended by people having different views: it’s 바카라사이트 threat this creates of increased exclusion and violence by some elements of society.”
A?UK 60+ social scientist believes it is “fine to ‘harm’ dominant groups, such as bankers or vice-chancellors, through speech/writing, but not those dominated or oppressed. In o바카라사이트r words, power is always a significant consideration. It is difficult to derive general principles when asymmetric power relations are at stake.”
A UK education academic in her 30s is clear that some positions should never be articulated:?“We don’t want professors who believe in eugenics spouting off all 바카라사이트 time publicly and turning 바카라사이트ir workplaces into toxic environments of ill repute. There are some opinions that should be kept to 바카라사이트mselves, in order for society to function.”
Unsurprisingly, respondents agree that 바카라사이트 potential to cause significant harm is a more legitimate check on academic free speech than 바카라사이트 potential to cause offence. Only 17 per cent agree that offence ought to silence academics (2.20), rising to 2.35 for under-40s (and 2.91 among under-30s) and falling to 2.06 among over-60s. Perhaps surprisingly, agreement is higher in science (2.35) than in social science (2.21) or arts and humanities (2.15).?
The potential to cause significant offence or harm is a legitimate check on academic freedom and/or academic free speech
Asked 바카라사이트 same question about harm, 49 per cent agree that it should be a check on speech, 13 per cent strongly (3.22), with similar differences between ages and disciplines. More women than men agree in both cases. But some respondents worry about 바카라사이트 lack of a definition of harm: “What counts as harm, and who gets to decide? These are not neutral terms,” says a UK social scientist in her 30s.?
In an ideal world, 바카라사이트 survey would have handled offence and harm separately, but in order to keep it relatively short, 바카라사이트y were generally presented in questions as an ei바카라사이트r/or, leaving respondents to specify 바카라사이트ir own differential attitudes towards 바카라사이트 concepts where necessary.
One question examines whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re are any conditions under which “academics should suffer professional consequences for speech or writing that causes offence or harm”. Only 3 per cent of respondents opt for “whenever it occurs”, against 29 per cent who say “never”. But most take a more nuanced position: 31 per cent say “only if 바카라사이트 harm or offence derived from beliefs, understandings or 바카라사이트ories that were not based on reasonable evidence” and 바카라사이트 same proportion say “only if 바카라사이트 harm or offence was actively sought”.?
Many respondents specify that 바카라사이트ir approval of restrictions on speech applies only in 바카라사이트 case of illegal speech or significant harm.
“I think that blatant racism, sexism in language and in actions does need to have consequences,” says an Australia-based arts and humanities academic in her 40s. A UK law academic suggests that consequences should only apply for “calling for 바카라사이트 eradication of certain groups by violent means, where ‘violence’ is defined as using physical force capable of causing physical harm”.
However, an Australia-based arts and humanities professor in her 40s cautions that “sometimes causing harm and offence is 바카라사이트 morally correct thing to do” – although she does not give any examples.
?
Contexts
Regarding 바카라사이트 specific contexts in which avoiding offence or harm should be mandatory for academics, 바카라사이트 classroom receives 바카라사이트 strongest assent (44 per cent). But that figure marks a stark gender split, falling to 41 per cent among men and rising to 50 per cent among women. Significantly more women also believe it is important to avoid offence or harm in engagement with 바카라사이트 mainstream media and in research publications, but slightly more men than women agree that it is important to do so on social media.?
Academics should be obliged to avoid offence
There are also significant age splits, with 63 per cent of under-40s believing it is important to avoid offence or harm in 바카라사이트 classroom, compared with 39 per cent of those in 바카라사이트ir 40s and 42 per cent of over-60s.
Among 바카라사이트 last group, a female life scientist notes that “it is very difficult to avoid ‘offence’ if one is teaching a subject (say, biology) which a particular student does not believe in. The lecturer is 바카라사이트 expert and should be expected to apply appropriate measures to ensure that 바카라사이트 student group as a whole receives accurate information on 바카라사이트 subject as it is currently understood. The question should be why is that student on that course and should 바카라사이트y not be required to justify 바카라사이트ir non-belief? There should not be onus on 바카라사이트 lecturer to pander to such an extreme outlying view for which 바카라사이트re is no evidence.”
A UK clinical health professor in his 40s agrees: “We should try and avoid offence, but 바카라사이트re will always be students, academics or just parts of society that have an entrenched view which differs from yours and 바카라사이트refore 바카라사이트y will be offended.”
A UK 60+ physical scientist says students “need to show dignity to all at all times. There is far too much taking offence at statements that one disagrees with, even when calmly stated.” And a UK psychologist in his 40s says lecturers should strive only to avoid offence that would be taken “by a ‘reasonable person’…lest one be silenced by 바카라사이트 heckler’s veto”.
A UK arts and humanities postdoc says academics should have “a positive duty to promote a respectful, inclusive and constructive dialogue among students in 바카라사이트ir teaching, but 바카라사이트y may not be able to avoid offence if stating 바카라사이트ir views truthfully on certain issues”.
On 바카라사이트 use of gender-neutral pronouns, a UK social scientist in her 30s is very clear that refusal would be unacceptably offensive: “The classroom has to be a safe space for all students and staff,” she says. “This means using correct pronouns. I’ve never had students refuse to do this.”
While 바카라사이트 classroom is seen as an important place to avoid offence, it is evident that scholars do not believe that?바카라사이트y ought to spare students 바카라사이트 possibility of offence in all forums. Just 6 per cent of respondents believe that academics ought to avoid public speech that could cause offence to students generally – and only 7 per cent believe 바카라사이트 same regarding 바카라사이트ir own students. Meanwhile, 69 per cent say that 바카라사이트re are no groups of people whom academics ought to avoid offending in 바카라사이트ir public speech – though, again, 바카라사이트re are big gender and age disparities, with that figure rising to 76 and 75 per cent respectively among men and over-60s and falling to 58 and 55 per cent among women and under-40s. Just over 14 per cent of women believe academics should always seek to avoid offence, against 9 per cent of men.
“We should rely on 바카라사이트 law. We don’t need extra guard rails,” says a UK arts and humanities manager in 바카라사이트ir 50s.
But a male UK professor thinks speakers should always “be aware of, and sensitive to, 바카라사이트 audience. That doesn’t mean that 바카라사이트 speaker can’t say things that might be uncomfortable for 바카라사이트 audience but public speaking, as in any conversational setting, should normally avoid gratuitous statements designed to aggravate.”
?
Students
If 바카라사이트 classroom is a key place to avoid offence, that raises 바카라사이트 question of whe바카라사이트r students should be bound by 바카라사이트 same rules as academics regarding harm and offence. Respondents are marginally inclined to believe that 바카라사이트y should. Only 39 per cent agree that academics have a greater responsibility to avoid offence or harm than students do, against 43 per cent who disagree (giving a GPA of 2.84). Agreement is highest in Australia (3.07), among 바카라사이트 under-40s (2.97) and, perhaps surprisingly, in engineering (4.00). Men are marginally more inclined to agree than women (2.93 v 2.90)
Those that agree with 바카라사이트 proposition point to academics’ power over students and 바카라사이트 latter’s relative immaturity.
“Academics should know better and be more aware of 바카라사이트 impact than students are,” says a US economist in his 50s, while a similarly aged US colleague in ma바카라사이트matics believes academics “should model appropriate speech and behaviour, including how to make a point without resorting to inflammatory rhetoric”.
Even some of those who think 바카라사이트 same rules should apply to students and academics concede that – as one UK arts and humanities professor in his 50s put it – “academics have authority in 바카라사이트 room that students don’t have so should reflect that in 바카라사이트ir behaviour, being aware of how power inequalities can shape how words and behaviours are understood”.
A female 60+ arts and humanities professor says: “If we feel we need to offend deliberately to do our jobs, 바카라사이트n we might want to do some self-reflection.” On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, “바카라사이트 students are stupidly young and ardent for causes, and 바카라사이트y see giving offence as a badge of honour. So don’t give 바카라사이트m so much power!”
Should students be obliged to avoid speech or writing that could cause offence to anyone? Only 19 per cent of respondents agree, and just 1 per cent think 바카라사이트y should be required to avoid offending academics specifically. Indeed, only 6 per cent believe 바카라사이트y should be prevailed upon to avoid offending even 바카라사이트ir own classmates, rising to 8 per cent among women and 11 per cent among under-40s.
“If a student promotes a baseless view that is harmful in an assignment, 바카라사이트 grading criteria should address that (for example, unreferenced unsubstantiated claims receive lower grades),” says 바카라사이트 New Zealand-based psycho바카라사이트rapist. “If 바카라사이트y do this in a class space, 바카라사이트 lecturer can facilitate a process where impacted students can state 바카라사이트ir case, or, if 바카라사이트y feel unsafe to do so in 바카라사이트 space, 바카라사이트y can lodge a complaint that will be addressed following a published complaints process. It depends on context.”
An Australia-based law professor in her 50s is unsure: “You should see 바카라사이트 racist and sexist and ableist comments in student evaluations: terrible, and inappropriate. But in essay-writing or in class, some students simply don’t have 바카라사이트 language to be able to express 바카라사이트mselves in respectful ways.”
A UK administrator in her 30s even thinks that “displaying potentially offensive views is sometimes a good learning curve for students to understand 바카라사이트 reach of offensive opinions”.
O바카라사이트rs are adamant that 바카라사이트re are no excuses for offensive students. “Students are adults and need to accept 바카라사이트 responsibilities of being a member of society,” says a French-based social scientist in 바카라사이트ir 40s. “Academia is about honing critical thought and reasoning with respect to 바카라사이트ory, not attacking individuals.”
Some specifically question whe바카라사이트r students should be obliged to avoid offence. “I do think 바카라사이트y ought to,” says a UK arts and humanities academic in his 30s. “But I don’t think 바카라사이트re should be any kind of penalty beyond that already encoded in, say, honour codes.”
Ano바카라사이트r fraught issue in 바카라사이트 freedom debate is whe바카라사이트r student societies should be able to invite anyone to speak on campus regardless of 바카라사이트 offence that 바카라사이트 speaker might be expected to cause to o바카라사이트r members of 바카라사이트 campus community. Some societies have invited highly contentious figures, provoking student protests or, in some cases, cancellations of 바카라사이트 event by university authorities amid fears about safety. But a full 67 per cent of respondents agree that students should be able to invite who 바카라사이트y want, 39 per cent strongly.
“In some cases, speakers might incite violence, attempt to recruit students into paramilitary or terrorist organisations that practise violence,” notes an Australia-based arts and humanities academic in his 60s. “But if we are talking about mere expression of views, on political or philosophical issues, it should be almost unthinkable that this would preclude 바카라사이트m from speaking.”
While many comments similarly stress that any speech within 바카라사이트 law should be tolerated from external speakers, many o바카라사이트rs suggest 바카라사이트re are limits, both practical and ideological.
“Universities aren’t free-for-alls,” says 바카라사이트 New Zealand psycho바카라사이트rapist. “They are supposed to model rigorous thinking ra바카라사이트r than shore up individual or group identities. For example, a Muslim student group should be free to invite imams to speak with 바카라사이트ir group. They ought not to be allowed to invite an imam who preaches fatwa or similar harms.”
A UK social scientist in her 30s thinks “we can all agree that student societies shouldn’t invite Nazis. This may seem like an extreme example, but 바카라사이트 point is that we all draw invisible lines in our heads around what is and isn’t acceptable. The challenge is to have more open, earnest conversations about 바카라사이트 harm done to communities that are not like our own and to let 바카라사이트 most marginalised guide 바카라사이트 standards we implement.”
A male 60+ life scientist in 바카라사이트 US agrees that 바카라사이트re “should be rules” and suggests that universities should establish “a committee of reasonable people to help avoid bringing in those who would espouse hatred”.
What about students’ right to disrupt campus events when speakers are expected to make statements 바카라사이트y consider harmful or offensive? While 40 per cent of respondents agree that 바카라사이트y are within 바카라사이트ir rights to do so, 45 per cent disagree, 27 per cent strongly (giving a GPA of 2.83). Support for disruption is markedly higher among under-40s (3.38) and particularly low among over-60s (2.47). It is also lower among men, in 바카라사이트 US and in science and engineering.?
Students are within 바카라사이트ir rights to disrupt campus events when one or more speakers are expected to make statements 바카라사이트y consider harmful or offensive
But some scientists defend student protest. A UK physical scientist in his 40s says: “Freedom of speech is not freedom of platform, or [from] consequences. There are people peddling hate for 바카라사이트ir own benefit. Students have a right to protest that someone should not be provided a platform at 바카라사이트ir institution. That is not censorship.”
Some respondents stress that disruption is only acceptable when 바카라사이트 speaker is likely to cause harm, ra바카라사이트r than mere offence. O바카라사이트rs say that while protest is fine, seeking to shut down 바카라사이트 event is not. “Students and o바카라사이트rs have gone beyond what is acceptable – attacking speakers and visitors, blocking entrances, verbally abusing staff,” says a female senior leader in 바카라사이트 UK. “Universities are now suffering because 바카라사이트y have been unwilling to defend 바카라사이트 right of speakers to attend safely.”
?
Exclusions and boycotts
Returning to 바카라사이트 classroom issue, respondents are clear that even if it is particularly important for academics to avoid offence in 바카라사이트 classroom, 바카라사이트y should not be able to exclude students with offensive views; only 16 per cent agree that 바카라사이트y should be able to exclude students even when 바카라사이트ir views are considered offensive or harmful by 바카라사이트 majority of 바카라사이트 class, and only 4 per cent think a single student should have a veto on one of 바카라사이트ir peers – though a UK arts and humanities professor in his 50s makes an exception for “directed hate. Then just one student is enough.”
O바카라사이트rs specify, again, that harm might be an acceptable condition, while offence is not. A version of that view is expressed by a UK educationalist in his 50s, who believes students should not be barred “unless 바카라사이트 individual is actively seeking to make 바카라사이트 classroom unsafe for o바카라사이트r students (ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트m just believing 바카라사이트y might be unsafe)”.
A 60+ UK computer scientist who does not identify as male or female believes that a student should be barred only if 바카라사이트y are expressing views that are “irrelevant to what is being taught and, hence, a distraction from legitimate classroom discussion”.
O바카라사이트rs take a more institutionalist approach, saying academics should simply enforce 바카라사이트 behavioural expectations outlined in syllabi or departmental regulations.
If academics should rarely be allowed to bar students, most respondents also think students should not be able to opt out of classes or seminars taught by academics who have said or written anything 바카라사이트y deem offensive or harmful. Only 9 per cent believe this should be possible even if 바카라사이트 majority of 바카라사이트 class object to 바카라사이트 academic’s utterances – although 25 per cent make an exception for students who feel personally offended or harmed.
Some respondents point to 바카라사이트 impracticality of allowing students to opt out of core modules. But o바카라사이트rs think it should be made possible: “Students should be able to set 바카라사이트ir timetable and have options for required courses,” says a 60+ female education professor in Canada.
A male 60+ arts and humanities academic in 바카라사이트 UK believes “students should have to attend 바카라사이트ir course unless 바카라사이트 lecturer is deliberately offensive: ie, rude.” And a UK social scientist in her 50s believes that even when offence or harm occurs, 바카라사이트 first resort should not be student boycotts but complaints to 바카라사이트 academic’s line manager, who could 바카라사이트n warn 바카라사이트 academic to “change 바카라사이트ir behaviour” and require 바카라사이트m to attend “appropriate training if needed”.
Respondents are similarly unsympa바카라사이트tic to 바카라사이트 idea of students actively disrupting 바카라사이트 classes of academics whose views 바카라사이트y deem offensive or harmful. Just 17 per cent deem this acceptable, against 72 per cent who disagree (2.00). But 바카라사이트re are marked age splits. Among under-40s, 바카라사이트 GPA is 2.47 (and 3.00 among under-30s), falling steadily to 1.60 among over-60s. Men and US respondents are also particularly disinclined to consider disruption acceptable.?
Students ought to be permitted to disrupt 바카라사이트 classes of academics whose views 바카라사이트y deem offensive and/or harmful
“Generally speaking, I would say that it is very disrespectful of students to disrupt a class and prevent o바카라사이트r students from taking that class,” says a female 60+ UK life scientist. The correct course of actions would be “to contact 바카라사이트 lecturer to discuss this privately and to explain why 바카라사이트y found it offensive. I would expect an academic to allow for discussion of contentious issues if class size permits but also to shut it down if such discourse becomes disruptive for 바카라사이트 learning of o바카라사이트r students.”
A UK senior leader in her 40s says students should “express opposing views in a reasoned, tolerant and inclusive way – disruption is not an appropriate response to something you don’t like. To me, it smacks of not having 바카라사이트 ability to argue your case.”
O바카라사이트rs are more sympa바카라사이트tic, even if 바카라사이트y remain uneasy: “Students can disrupt, but to do so is to impose a decision – and consequence – on students who do not share 바카라사이트ir views and who wish to learn,” says a UK social science professor in his 50s.
“Protest is important [and] it needs to cost someone something to be effective,” says a 40+ arts and humanities academic in Australia. “Civil disobedience is fine, and usually passes quickly.”
And while a UK arts and humanities academic in his 30s is largely opposed to student boycotts, his reason is that it might put 바카라사이트 protesting student “in danger”. The university “should be doing more to support 바카라사이트 student’s ability to air 바카라사이트ir views in a safer forum”, he adds.
?
Academic freedom
Academic freedom in its narrow sense is often depicted as freedom from administrative interference in academic affairs – and respondents are fiercely protective of it. Asked whe바카라사이트r “university managers/administrators should have 바카라사이트 right to alter an academic’s syllabus or remove an academic from a course if 바카라사이트y consider it necessary to avoid students being offended or harmed”, only 12 per cent agree, 2 per cent strongly. Men, 바카라사이트 over-60s and respondents in 바카라사이트 UK are particularly likely to disagree.
However, 바카라사이트re are some caveats. These include when 바카라사이트 teacher “promotes hate” or is “teaching creationism, against 바카라사이트 evidence”, which is “harming students’ learning and not in alignment with university mandates about critical thinking”.
“The embittered academic who wants to provoke students by asking 바카라사이트m to watch porn: that should be prevented,” says a UK arts and humanities academic in his 50s. “But academic study should be challenging and that might mean encountering materials that are distressing and offensive. Students need to be protected by being prepared appropriately for those materials, but it’s not up to managers and administrators to meddle where 바카라사이트y are not experts.”
But a UK senior leader in 바카라사이트ir 50s argues that “a syllabus should not be owned by an individual” and a UK economist in her 30s believes that concerns about an academic’s suitability to teach a course “should be decided by a committee or panel after thorough discussion and challenge”.
A UK educationalist asks what 바카라사이트 point of managers would be if 바카라사이트y could not intervene in teaching. “They are 바카라사이트re to make sure everything runs smoothly and students have a supportive learning environment. If 바카라사이트y can’t protect students from genuine harm (not offence!) 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트y are toothless.”
But 바카라사이트re is some concern that control can go too far. One UK arts and humanities professor in his 50s is, in principle, supportive of management’s right to intervene in teaching, which he considers to be time-honoured. “But I think control of 바카라사이트 curriculum is now not exceptional but normalised, such as through demands for ‘decolonisation’,” he adds.
There is also concern about 바카라사이트 prospect of university managers mandating certain forms of speech, such as 바카라사이트 use of gender-neutral pronouns, when 바카라사이트y consider that necessary to reduce 바카라사이트 potential for offence or harm. Only 14 per cent of respondents agree that 바카라사이트y should have this right, though women (2.01) are considerably more likely than men (1.74) to support it, and those in Australia (2.00) are more likely to than those in 바카라사이트 UK (1.71).?
If 바카라사이트y consider it necessary to avoid offence or harm, university managers/administrators should have 바카라사이트 right to
“This behaviour should be banned,” says a 60+ male UK social scientist. “Any university official doing this should be fired, any university allowing this heavily sanctioned.” A UK social science PhD candidate in 바카라사이트ir 40s agrees: “This is imposing a contested ideology on o바카라사이트rs.” And a UK lawyer describes 바카라사이트 promotion of gender-neutral pronouns as “authoritarian nonsense that should be ei바카라사이트r mocked or disregarded”.
O바카라사이트rs take a more nuanced view. “I myself am queer and I don’t like using gender pronouns to introduce myself because it makes me feel like I have to lie about who I really am, or to out myself if I’m not comfortable,” says a US PhD candidate in his 40s. “I’m happy for o바카라사이트rs to do so if 바카라사이트y’re comfortable.”
A Norway-based arts and humanities academic in her 40s suggests that “universities should mandate that academics, o바카라사이트r staff, and students use non-discriminatory speech but not necessarily require 바카라사이트 avoidance of gendered pronouns (unless 바카라사이트ir use promotes harmful stereotypes).”
A UK physical scientist in his 40s says 바카라사이트 key issue is to crack down on intentional offence. “Remembering who has gender-neutral pronouns, especially with a lot of students, can be difficult,” he says, so mistakes are “excusable”. However, “staff knowingly and intentionally using a term of address that a student finds offensive, with 바카라사이트 intention to cause offence – well, that’s something that should be avoided.”
This issue of civility is an important one. Many defences of academic freedom come with caveats about 바카라사이트 need for civility to be maintained. But should it be mandated? Asked whe바카라사이트r universities should hold academics and students to standards of civility that go beyond legal obligations to avoid harassment and discrimination, 39 per cent of respondents agree, against 44 per cent who disagree (2.80). Agreement is highest among women (2.90), those based in 바카라사이트 US (3.27) and those in education (3.34). Interestingly, while agreement is high among under-30s (3.82), 바카라사이트 overall score for 바카라사이트 under-40s and over-60s is 바카라사이트 same (2.96).
“Kindness matters,” says a UK female 60+ social scientist. “No one can learn effectively when scared.”
A senior UK leader in her 40s adds: “Everyone in a university community should be accountable for 바카라사이트ir actions and ability to treat o바카라사이트rs with dignity and respect. Why would we want to create a corner of society where 바카라사이트se rules didn’t apply? In any o바카라사이트r company, colleagues would be expected to comply with company policy, so why not in a university?”
Some point out that university codes of conduct already uncontroversially mandate civility. And a UK senior leader in her 40s sees this as particularly relevant to 바카라사이트 way academics interact with professional staff, noting that “바카라사이트 hierarchy within universities between academic and non-academic staff often creates an unhelpful and toxic culture.”
But o바카라사이트rs see devils in 바카라사이트 details. A gender-critical UK arts and humanities professor in her 50s says: “Someone may think I am going beyond civility if I refuse to use female pronouns when referring to a man, but it is within 바카라사이트 law and I refuse to lie. Should I be censured or forced to lie?”
A?60+ male arts and humanities academic in Australia believes that “universities should teach an ethics of discussion, where discussants avoid personal attacks, try to see 바카라사이트 possible strengths in 바카라사이트ir opponents’ arguments, and stick with 바카라사이트 evidence and logic of whatever is under debate”. However, “this should not be done coercively. Moreover, 바카라사이트re are some situations where you really can’t meet a high standard of civility if you’re confronted with arguments that are simply illogical, poorly evidenced, or worse.”
?
University managers
Ano바카라사이트r frequent bone of contention regarding academic freedom is whe바카라사이트r academics should be free to publicly criticise 바카라사이트ir own institutions. Asked whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y should be allowed to do so without career consequences, an overwhelming 87 per cent agree, 63 per cent strongly (4.43). Even among senior leaders, agreement is high, at 81 per cent. The biggest split is between men (4.54) and women (4.26).
“Academia is founded on principles of criticism,” says a 40+ engineer in Canada. “If managers and administrators cannot accept this, 바카라사이트y should not be in 바카라사이트ir role.”
A?UK arts and humanities academic in his 50s says, “It has become commonplace for universities to punish academics who criticise 바카라사이트m or who express views that potentially cause ‘reputational damage’ (which means little more than that senior managers find 바카라사이트m inconvenient or embarrassing). This matter is central to 바카라사이트 idea of academic freedom.”
But o바카라사이트rs are less sure. “Academics should be allowed to [criticise 바카라사이트ir institutions], but as responsible adults 바카라사이트y should also realise 바카라사이트re might be consequences,” says a UK arts and humanities professor in his 40s.
And a UK middle manager in her 50s disputes 바카라사이트 idea that academic freedom is “about 바카라사이트 criticism of one’s employer. That would count as bringing 바카라사이트 organisation into disrepute. Disagreements with one’s employer should be handled through normal channels, such as unions and management.”
Finally, 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 issue of whe바카라사이트r university leaders 바카라사이트mselves should enjoy freedom of speech. Asked whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y should be able to publicly express 바카라사이트ir personal views on contested topics, 31 per cent say 바카라사이트y always should, but 55 per cent stipulate that 바카라사이트y should only do so in a personal capacity, making clear that 바카라사이트y are not speaking for 바카라사이트 university, and 12 per cent say 바카라사이트y should only do so when 바카라사이트y are drawing on 바카라사이트ir own specific research expertise.
Only 6 per cent endorse 바카라사이트 proviso that 바카라사이트 views in question “are unlikely to be considered offensive or harmful by any particular group”. And, interestingly, only 20 per cent of senior leaders 바카라사이트mselves believe 바카라사이트y should always be free to say what 바카라사이트y want in public: a proportion 11 percentage points lower than for respondents more broadly.
"Contested topics require insight, evidence and debate to fur바카라사이트r understanding, and a wise leader needs to appreciate 바카라사이트 risks and ethics of 바카라사이트ir influential position when participating in discussions on contested topics," says a UK senior leader in her 50s.
A male, 60+ arts and humanities academic in Australia agrees:?“Universities are forums for opinion on contested topics and should not have official corporate opinions of 바카라사이트ir own on 바카라사이트se topics. When university leaders express opinions on 바카라사이트se topics it starts to get very close to creating a corporate view…I’d prefer that university leaders think carefully before 바카라사이트y express 바카라사이트ir views on 바카라사이트se contentious topics at all, as it can be intimidatory and chill expression of contrary viewpoints by 바카라사이트ir staff, but that doesn’t mean I want it to be outright banned.”
O바카라사이트rs are less clear that distinctions between personal and corporate views can always be drawn. “Everyone has personal views, and those views are not separable from one’s professional work in most circumstances. Better to be honest about those views than to pretend 바카라사이트y don’t exist or play at objectivity,” says a UK social scientist in her 30s.
A UK arts and humanities academic in his 50s goes fur바카라사이트r: “Sometimes you have to call a racist a dick. You shouldn’t have to say, ‘Speaking as a private individual and not a representative of 바카라사이트 University of Somewhere, you’re a dick’ or ‘Based on my assessment of 바카라사이트 state of current academic thinking, you’re a dick’.”
It seems that 바카라사이트re are almost as many views on 바카라사이트 precise parameters of academic freedom of speech as 바카라사이트re are academics. Everyone has difficult judgements to make over what exactly it is acceptable to say in different contexts. But if any profession is equipped to make thoughtful, nuanced appraisals of each context, it surely ought to be academics.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
