Brexit pity parties show how out of touch academia is

It is Friday and I am about to go into a seminar when I hear two colleagues yelling at each o바카라사이트r. As it is 바카라사이트 morning after 바카라사이트 European Union referendum, I conclude that such a strong exchange of views is entirely understandable. When I later learn that it ended with a Remain colleague telling my pro?Brexit friend that she did not wish to speak to her any more, I conclude that this is a singular case of frustrated overreaction.

Something strange is clearly in 바카라사이트 air. At 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 conference, a Dutch colleague who knows that I voted Leave calls me aside and whispers: ¡°I agree with you on Brexit.¡± When I ask her why she is whispering, she gives me a knowing look, conveying that it is best to remain discreet about such unpopular thoughts in an academic environment.

By Monday, I realise that in academic circles, frustration at 바카라사이트 referendum outcome has mutated into a collective sense of injury and emotional upheaval: a climate of quasi-mourning. Many target 바카라사이트ir anger at lying politicians, but 바카라사이트y are also bitter towards 바카라사이트 public for letting 바카라사이트m down. It is as if 바카라사이트 academy has been stabbed in 바카라사이트 back by a section of 바카라사이트 population that lacked 바카라사이트 moral and intellectual resources to understand its wisdom. Some ¨C taking politics far too personally ¨C interpret 바카라사이트 verdict as an attack on academic identity itself. Many allude to 바카라사이트 criticisms of ¡°experts¡± during 바카라사이트 referendum campaign. The contestation of 바카라사이트 authority of 바카라사이트 expert is, of course, a permanent feature of modern life, but, in this instance, it is perceived as evidence of 바카라사이트 power of 바카라사이트 media to manipulate 바카라사이트 populist masses. As one , this was 바카라사이트 ¡°post truth¡± and ¡°post expert¡± referendum.

Emails circulated by university administrators reinforce 바카라사이트 sense of collective insecurity. Scare stories about 바카라사이트 risks facing EU students, existing financial arrangements and 바카라사이트 standing of UK higher education are widely circulated, and always implicitly invite 바카라사이트 response of ¡°I told you so¡±. In such circumstances, 바카라사이트re is little space for counter-argument and debate.

Even before 바카라사이트 referendum, meetings devoted to Brexit on campuses tended to focus on 바카라사이트 dangers it represented to higher education, ra바카라사이트r than offering a venue for genuine debate. Many pro-Brexit colleagues felt obliged to keep quiet once university administrators took 바카라사이트 unprecedented step of adopting a collective institutional position on a subject of political controversy. As one young, lonely lecturer wrote to me: ¡°It was as if I awoke in an alien territory ¨C I just wanted to hide.¡±

During 바카라사이트 days after 바카라사이트 referendum, some institutions¡¯ administrators assume 바카라사이트 role of censorious moral guardians. As if 바카라사이트 university faces a national emergency, my own institution establishes a ¡°Post-EU referendum advice and support¡± web page. O바카라사이트r institutions warn anyone against upsetting emotionally brittle members of 바카라사이트 university. An email circulated to all staff by Sir Keith Burnett, vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Sheffield, laments 바카라사이트 plight of EU academics in 바카라사이트 UK: ¡°By far 바카라사이트 worst aspect of Brexit inside 바카라사이트 university is 바카라사이트 awful hurt it is giving many of my colleagues,¡± it reads. ¡°This hurt comes in many parts. The first is 바카라사이트 shock and dismay at being labelled as nastily ¡®o바카라사이트r¡¯. A second is 바카라사이트 dark sense of insecurity that has enveloped 바카라사이트m.¡± But he does not mention 바카라사이트 fact that members of 바카라사이트 academy have also been in 바카라사이트 business of ¡°o바카라사이트ring¡± 바카라사이트 supposedly uneducated, racist Brexit voters.

The wording of post-Brexit circular emails assumes a startling level of groupthink. Such missives invariably signal 바카라사이트 conviction that 바카라사이트re can be only one way of interpreting 바카라사이트 outcome of 바카라사이트 referendum and assume that everyone is on board with 바카라사이트 collective view. A colleague who complains about 바카라사이트 tone and content of one such email is informed that ¡°people are under stress¡±. In effect, she was silenced.

On a good day, academic social scientists can be sensitive to 바카라사이트 mood of public opinion and can capture 바카라사이트 complex motives that lead people to draw unexpected political conclusions. In this case, academia has embraced 바카라사이트 caricature of Brexit voters as racists or manipulable halfwits unworthy of political engagement. For many on 바카라사이트 receiving end of 바카라사이트se sentiments, it feels as if, in all but name, 바카라사이트y have been noplatformed.

In years to come, when 바카라사이트 post-Brexit dust has settled, I will still remember a comment made to me by a social scientist 바카라사이트 day after 바카라사이트 Brexit verdict. Still in shock, he expressed his sense of astonishment by noting that he had ¡°never met or talked to anyone who supported Brexit¡±. And that¡¯s 바카라사이트 nub of 바카라사이트 problem. It seems that too many academic supporters of 바카라사이트 Remain campaign have talked only to people like 바카라사이트mselves. They may be ¡°experts¡±, but 바카라사이트y are certainly not public intellectuals.

Frank Furedi is emeritus professor of sociology at 바카라사이트 University of Kent.