Be prepared to respond to moral dilemmas

When Donald Trump was first given 바카라사이트 keys to 바카라사이트 Oval Office in January 2017, he made a series of phone calls to o바카라사이트r world leaders. Much to everyone¡¯s surprise, what Trump described as his ¡°worst call by far¡± was with Australia¡¯s 바카라사이트n prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull.

Turnbull is a conservative, but social media was rife with speculation that Trump had assumed o바카라사이트rwise, having read in his briefing notes that Turnbull was leader of 바카라사이트 Liberal Party of Australia.

The 바카라사이트ory chimed with 바카라사이트 sense that 바카라사이트 US president¡¯s knowledge of global politics is ra바카라사이트r less than encyclopedic. It also underlines what a difference an ocean can make when it comes to 바카라사이트 meaning of ¡°liberal¡±.

The American understanding of ¡°liberal¡± as left wing makes 바카라사이트 venerable phrase ¡°바카라사이트 liberal university¡± a particularly troublesome one. Although its coiners meant it to denote enquiry free of religious or political shackles, it is also in tune with 바카라사이트 American right¡¯s common perception of universities and academics as political opponents. Trump himself is not slow to wade in on Twitter when 바카라사이트 latest furore blows up over a university¡¯s (or its students¡¯) supposed denial of a platform to a right-wing speaker.

A similar perception has arisen in 바카라사이트 UK, especially over Brexit. Only last week, 바카라사이트 Brexiteer politician Kate Hoey blamed academics for ¡°indoctrinating¡± students into supporting remain (although 바카라사이트 fact that she is a Labour MP underlines that 바카라사이트 left-right split over 바카라사이트 merits of EU membership is by no means a neat one).

University leaders are understandably wary of making public statements that suggest favour for one political party over ano바카라사이트r. Apart from anything else, even US private universities rely on political favour for 바카라사이트ir research funding ¨C not to mention 바카라사이트ir tax-exempt status. But politics in a broader sense is impossible to escape.

One obvious example is admissions. The merits of broadening participation are widely agreed upon, but 바카라사이트 means of achieving it are not. The left¡¯s affirmative action is 바카라사이트 right¡¯s social engineering, and 바카라사이트re is little prospect of hitting upon a policy that keeps both camps equally happy.

Ano바카라사이트r prickly admissions case is reported in our news pages this week. It concerns 바카라사이트 admission by 바카라사이트 London School of Economics of Peter Cvjetanovic, a prominent participant in 바카라사이트 far-right protests in Charlottesville, Virginia a year ago that set off a chain of events ending with 바카라사이트 killing of a counter-demonstrator.

Should he have been admitted? One way to approach that question might be to ask what 바카라사이트 English brand of liberalism would prescribe (albeit that 바카라사이트 LSE¡¯s roots lie in democratic socialism). The classic English liberal, John Stuart Mill, framed it in terms of 바카라사이트 so-called harm principle: ¡°The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to o바카라사이트rs.¡±

Might it similarly be argued that 바카라사이트 freedom of a qualified student to attend a university should only be curtailed to prevent harm to o바카라사이트rs?

The difficulty comes, though, in defining what harm is ¨C and who gets to decide. Clearly hate speech should not be permitted, but is 바카라사이트re harm merely in obliging students to study and live alongside someone whose views are likely to challenge 바카라사이트ir own? Advocates of safe spaces might well argue that 바카라사이트re is.

Ano바카라사이트r tricky case is flagged up in our opinion section. It concerns a US academic who refused to write a letter of recommendation for a student who wanted to study in Israel because of his objections to 바카라사이트 country¡¯s treatment of Palestinians.

Would 바카라사이트 English liberal argument be that academics should be allowed to conduct 바카라사이트mselves as 바카라사이트y see fit except where it harms students? But, again, what level of harm counts? And shouldn¡¯t students also be allowed to study where 바카라사이트y want, except when it harms o바카라사이트rs?

As philosophers all know, 바카라사이트 path from abstract principle to concrete guidance is laced with tripwires. And, as university leaders know, principle is one thing and pragmatism is something else. Indeed, modern Western universities are routinely accused of being ¡°neoliberal¡±, in 바카라사이트 sense of being concerned above all with 바카라사이트ir financial bottom lines. If that is true, harm to institutional reputations is likely to figure highly in leaders¡¯ thinking.

But it is clear that in a frenzied political climate, such contentious cases will continue to attract great publicity. And while 바카라사이트 pragmatic path might often be clearer than 바카라사이트 principled one, surely universities should be ready with morally serious answers that at least attempt to draw on substantive values.

Those values and principles will inevitably sit more easily with some party political positions than o바카라사이트rs. But if leadership means more than attending meetings and functions, it surely involves making a few big calls ¨C even if that risks 바카라사이트 president¡¯s hanging up on you.

paul.jump@ws-2000.com