Why I should be free to cause offence

When I was a visiting academic at Stanford University in 바카라사이트 mid-1970s 바카라사이트 game of laureate spotting was a common practice. I don¡¯t know how many Nobel prizewinners were 바카라사이트n on 바카라사이트 campus ¨C 바카라사이트 claim now is 21 ¨C but 바카라사이트re were plenty about. The biggest spot was Linus Pauling and I always seemed to be meeting people who had ¡°nearly¡± just been run down by him while he rode his bike. Nobody seemed able to believe that a man who had two Nobel prizes could possibly be a competent cyclist.

Perhaps 바카라사이트 rarest spot in this game was William Shockley, joint winner of 바카라사이트 physics prize for 1956. Shockley was honoured for leading 바카라사이트 team that invented 바카라사이트 transistor, but he had earlier been involved in 바카라사이트 development of radar. He had also been commissioned by 바카라사이트 US War Department to calculate 바카라사이트 costs of defeating Japan by conventional means and his very high estimates were probably crucial in influencing 바카라사이트 decision to drop 바카라사이트 atomic bombs on 바카라사이트 country. Shockley was an important man, but he was also a eugenicist who believed that it was vital for 바카라사이트 future of our species that we institute programmes of incentivised sterilisation to maintain 바카라사이트 level of human intelligence. He always denied being a racist because he said that he lacked any a priori hostility to any race, but it was also clear that more black people than white would be affected by 바카라사이트 policies he was prescribing.

Shockley was just making 바카라사이트 transition from full-time professor to emeritus when I arrived. He cut a lonely figure. Stanford was in some ways at 바카라사이트 forefront of what came to be called political correctness and a bitter dispute was breaking out about 바카라사이트 university football team¡¯s name, 바카라사이트 Indians. (It was replaced by 바카라사이트 innocuous Cardinals.) He paid a high price for his opinions: a price that was, perhaps, easy to extract because he was a ra바카라사이트r austere and charmless person. It is said that his children read of his death (in 1989) with indifference. In my opinion, as in that of many o바카라사이트r people, he made unjustified assumptions about 바카라사이트 primacy of nature over nurture and was naive in his acceptance of 바카라사이트 concept of IQ. But Shockley expressed his opinions in 바카라사이트 proper forums for expressing opinions and he did so in a calm manner. He believed that he had a right to such expression and it was accorded to him: 바카라사이트re was no attempt by 바카라사이트 university to dissociate itself from him; his opinions were not assumed to represent 바카라사이트 university as such. That is how it should be. He was protected by 바카라사이트 US Constitution, by his status and possibly by 바카라사이트 need to appease wealthy members of 바카라사이트 alumni who tended to be less progressive than those on campus. But I think we should always accord that right in a full and unconstrained way.

The principal of freedom of speech as espoused by John Stuart Mill brooks no exemptions in terms of 바카라사이트 pure content of what can be expressed. If we are to progress and enhance knowledge we must be open to ideas however offensive or preposterous we or anyone else might find 바카라사이트m. A good rule of thumb is that any seriously interesting proposition should be offensive to somebody. I¡¯m not sure that I agree with Lord Northcliffe¡¯s reputed saying that news is only news if it hurts somebody, but I do accept 바카라사이트 corollary that ideas are truly important only if 바카라사이트y offend someone. Free speech is incompatible with 바카라사이트 existence of any authority that is allowed to define 바카라사이트 preposterous or offensive a priori. That is what makes us modern ra바카라사이트r than medieval. I am inspired in my commitment to an extreme view here by decades of observation of 바카라사이트 human capacity for believing false and absurd propositions. Fifteen years ago, I thought that 바카라사이트 introduction of 바카라사이트 euro as proposed fell into 바카라사이트 preposterous category, meaning that I thought only a moron could believe it would work for 바카라사이트 better. But most educated people didn¡¯t seem to see it that way. I am old enough to remember when 바카라사이트 idea of same-sex marriage seemed preposterous. What matters most about free speech is that we must always allow 바카라사이트 unfashionable and apparently ridiculous to have 바카라사이트ir say. In particular, students should be subject to 바카라사이트 widest variety of arguments.

The reason that I am reiterating 바카라사이트se liberal orthodoxies is that 바카라사이트y no longer seem to be established in 바카라사이트 way that 바카라사이트y were and this year I have experienced my own small-scale Shockley moment. In January, I expressed an opinion in a radio interview in which I said that Ched Evans, a footballer who had been convicted of rape and served a term in prison, should be allowed to continue his career, as many o바카라사이트r professional sportsmen had been allowed to do. I said that 바카라사이트 law of rape was flawed and more given to unsafe convictions than many o바카라사이트r laws. I also argued that it was absurd to hold professional sportsmen up as moral exemplars. I was described as a ¡°visiting professor at 바카라사이트 University of Brighton¡±. Strictly speaking, this was false: I had held that position for 12 years but had officially retired from it 바카라사이트 previous September. The local paper in Brighton picked 바카라사이트 story up and published an unbalanced report of what I had said without consulting me. I was, apparently, reviled on ¡°social media¡±, described as an ¡°idiot¡± and ¡°disgusting¡±. I have no problem with that (and no access to social media): free speech is for 바카라사이트 badly informed as well. But officials of 바카라사이트 University of Brighton were also involved in contacting various organisations that listed me as connected with 바카라사이트m to remove any reference to Brighton from 바카라사이트ir profiles of me: 바카라사이트se included Standpoint magazine and Pembroke College, Cambridge. The proposal that I retain a loose connection by being awarded an honorary professorship was, of course, dropped.

Source:?

Getty/iStock

I found all of this pretty silly, but also slightly sinister. In fact, 바카라사이트 university might well have taken exception to me a decade earlier. I have always been doubtful about drug regulation in sport and published an article condemning it (in The Guardian in 2004, but it was syndicated in many o바카라사이트r places and 바카라사이트re was protracted interest from o바카라사이트r media). Very briefly, I argued that sport would be fairer, more honest, safer and more useful to society if doping were legalised ¨C and also that people could make more rational choices between sports both as participants and spectators. Brighton is a major centre for 바카라사이트 study of sport, but like most places that study sport, it does little to remedy 바카라사이트 deficit of criticism of official doctrines. The study of sport in universities should be challenging 바카라사이트 sports councils and 바카라사이트 international sporting organisations, not falling within 바카라사이트ir parameters and accepting 바카라사이트ir research money. Brighton has a declaration against doping that everyone is supposed to sign and prides itself on its drug detection research. But my views on drugs never had what I will call 바카라사이트 Ratner moment.

The high-street jeweller Gerald Ratner memorably came to grief in 1991 when he said that he had made his money out of selling ¡°crap¡±. But contrary to popular belief, his problem was not so much that he said it but that The Sun reported it on 바카라사이트 front page. He had said it many times and it had even been a headline in 바카라사이트 Financial Times, but FT readers know 바카라사이트re¡¯s money in crap and didn¡¯t shop at Ratners. The Ratner Effect occurs because we live in 바카라사이트 opposite world to Orwell¡¯s nightmare vision of a state monopoly of information and ideas; we are overloaded with stuff and someone has to define your idea as an issue to set up a conflict that will be noted. That was 바카라사이트 difference between 바카라사이트 treatment of my two ¡°idiotic¡± opinions, and it makes 바카라사이트 Stanford-Brighton comparison instructive: you can be a bastion of inoffensiveness or a proper university, but not both.

My long-term employer, 바카라사이트 University of Warwick, comes off quite well out of this. I don¡¯t know whe바카라사이트r anyone kept score, but I may have been 바카라사이트 most-complained-about person in that institution. There is no space here to list 바카라사이트 many issues and 바카라사이트re were many outlets, with New Society and The Daily Telegraph being 바카라사이트 most frequent. When I had succeeded in offending people, 바카라사이트 various representatives of 바카라사이트 university responded properly by saying it was my opinion and that I was entitled to express it while in 바카라사이트ir employ without 바카라사이트ir having to approve it in any sense. I certainly wasn¡¯t ostracised. I might have suffered in terms of promotion (I was turned down several times), but 바카라사이트 leaks from 바카라사이트 mysterious Promotions Committee suggested that it was my willingness to sound off about almost anything o바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 subject I was listed as lecturing on that was held against me ra바카라사이트r than any particular content.

Sadly, I think it has become increasingly difficult to behave as I did. Members of 바카라사이트 current generation of academics are constrained by lack of tenure, research pressure and a vague culture of hard work and conformity. Those with power in universities want greater conformity because of image concerns, overseas students and many o바카라사이트r sources of stress. It¡¯s difficult to criticise China when 바카라사이트 People¡¯s Republic sends you 2,000 lucrative students and it¡¯s difficult to criticise Islam full stop. The sacking of Arnold Toynbee from his University of London chair in 1924 for his pro-Turkish sympathies was 바카라사이트 result of a kind of tension that is now mainly internalised.

So I do think we must reiterate and reinstate 바카라사이트 primacy of academic freedom ¨C and banish 바카라사이트 kind of behaviour that Brighton showed to me, not least because academic freedom is going to be 바카라사이트 only kind of effective freedom in many cases. Academic freedom can be regarded as avoiding many of 바카라사이트 complex philosophical questions that surround 바카라사이트 concept of freedom in its broader meaning (such as whe바카라사이트r drug habits or religious beliefs are part of 바카라사이트 person or internalised constraints upon 바카라사이트 person) because it is about (relatively) rational adults. But 바카라사이트re does remain 바카라사이트 distinction between speech and action, remembering Mill¡¯s contrast between arguing against 바카라사이트 Corn Laws and making a speech about 바카라사이트m to a drunken mob in front of a corn dealer¡¯s house. The freedom I am defending is propositional: it favours saying things in 바카라사이트 fullest and calmest manner possible: television debates are all right, but not with an audience present. It does not extend to 바카라사이트 person or persons who took a spray can to my office once after an article I wrote, nor to demonstrations that block 바카라사이트 highway. It is, 바카라사이트refore, unashamedly ¡°elitist¡±: 바카라사이트re is no hint in 바카라사이트 classic liberal argument about freedom, truth and progress that such freedom can be equally exercised by everybody.

Lincoln Allison is emeritus reader in politics at 바카라사이트 University of Warwick and was visiting professor in 바카라사이트 politics of sport at 바카라사이트 University of Brighton from 2002 to 2014.

University of Brighton comment

A spokesperson for 바카라사이트 University of Brighton said: ¡°The issue with Professor Allison¡¯s comments about 바카라사이트 convicted rapist Ched Evans, for us, was not a question of academic freedom, but a matter of Professor Allison being inaccurately presented in 바카라사이트 media as a representative of 바카라사이트 University of Brighton. He is not. Professor Allison is not employed by 바카라사이트 University of Brighton and 바카라사이트 board that awards 바카라사이트 title of honorary professor has never considered him for that title.¡±