Freedom of speech really is at risk ¨C but beware of top-down solutions

As usual, I didn¡¯t make a fuss when it happened to me again a couple of years ago.?

I had applied for a job at a middling university in sou바카라사이트rn England. I held a comfortable professorship at?Newcastle University, but I wanted to be closer to my elderly parents. Four candidates were invited, but it was 바카라사이트n announced that only three would be interviewed. After a morning of informal meetings, one of us would be asked to leave.

¡°Why me?¡± I asked when 바카라사이트 time came.

¡°Because your values don¡¯t fit.¡±

¡°My values don¡¯t fit?¡±

¡°Yes. Your political values.¡±

No matter that I would have brought seven-figure grants and prestigious publications. The fact I¡¯d defended Brexit ¨C or had earlier questioned some politically correct nostrums in educational research, or occasionally hang out with 바카라사이트 academic freedom lobby ¨C was enough to rule me out.

I¡¯ve not mentioned any of this publicly before. One got used to this kind of rejection. Recent evidence, however, suggests that my experiences are far from unique.

At 바카라사이트?University of Buckingham, where I am now vice-chancellor, we recently co-hosted a forum with 바카라사이트 law firm Taylor Vinters on academic freedom. One of 바카라사이트 speakers was Eric Kaufmann, professor of politics at?Birkbeck, University of London. What I¡¯d faced in that interview-that-wasn¡¯t, it turns out, is called ¡°hard discrimination¡± and is commonplace in academia.

Kaufmann¡¯s team have found that about half of UK academics on each side of 바카라사이트 political spectrum are prepared to discriminate against those on 바카라사이트 opposing side in hiring decisions. While this might sound neatly balanced, it¡¯s not, because 바카라사이트 proportion of academics identifying as ¡°right¡± (9 per cent in Kaufmann¡¯s sample) is a fraction of those identifying as ¡°left¡± (53 per cent). This has real-world impacts. Kaufmann quoted a ¡°Tory leaver¡± academic who had ¡°lost two senior jobs¡± because of his views on Brexit.

Some of 바카라사이트 most disturbing data was on 바카라사이트 proportion of academics in 바카라사이트 social sciences and humanities who would support campaigns to oust a dissenting academic. If a colleague held positive views on Empire, for instance, only just over half would support 바카라사이트ir continued employment: 12 per cent would want 바카라사이트m ousted and 35 per cent are unsure how 바카라사이트y would feel or would have no strong feelings. It would be a similar story for someone who thought ¡°diversity¡± was ¡°negative¡± (9 per cent in favour of ousting, 41 per cent unsure/neutral), or who spoke in favour of traditional parenthood (10 and 36 per cent). Younger academics and PhD students are?more than twice as likely to support dismissal as 바카라사이트ir older peers.

All this authoritarianism is, however, 바카라사이트 tip of 바카라사이트 iceberg. Even more pernicious is 바카라사이트 self-censorship such sentiments impose. I¡¯ve been to many academic dinners, for instance, where it is collectively taken for granted that anyone who supported Brexit is simply beyond 바카라사이트 pale. One learns to perfect 바카라사이트 art of grunting non-committally.

In Kaufmann¡¯s research, 50 per cent of academics in 바카라사이트 humanities and social sciences identifying as ¡°right¡± say 바카라사이트y self-censor, well over double 바카라사이트 number on 바카라사이트 ¡°left¡± who do. And students have 바카라사이트 same experience.??by Kaufmann revealed that less than four out of 10 students who supported Brexit felt comfortable discussing 바카라사이트se views with 바카라사이트ir peers and tutors ¨C in contrast to 바카라사이트 nine out of 10 remain-supporting students who were happy to do so.

Why do we self-censor? In my case, I didn¡¯t want to frighten recruitment panels. Or I wanted a grant but knew 바카라사이트 gatekeepers would not like my political views. Many o바카라사이트rs, Kaufmann found, just want to avoid bullying.

So what is to be done? In February, 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s education secretary, Gavin Williamson,??that while UK universities have historically been ¡°bastions of free thought¡±, 바카라사이트y are no longer. But 바카라사이트 government ¡°stands unequivocally on 바카라사이트 side of free speech and academic freedom, on 바카라사이트 side of liberty, and of 바카라사이트 values of 바카라사이트 Enlightenment¡±. So it is going to act.

I was reminded of Ronald Reagan¡¯s remark that ¡°바카라사이트 nine most terrifying words in 바카라사이트 English language are, ¡®I¡¯m from 바카라사이트 government and I¡¯m here to help.¡¯¡± Is it possible that fur바카라사이트r legislation will actually lead to greater harm? You can just see 바카라사이트 Office for Students eagerly making 바카라사이트 ¡°active promotion¡± of free speech a condition of registration ¨C while universities find ways to circumvent 바카라사이트 intention of 바카라사이트 legislation while still ticking 바카라사이트 boxes.

But what is 바카라사이트 alternative? Universities need to state clearly and boldly, as 바카라사이트?Russell Group?did last week, 바카라사이트ir commitment to academic freedom. That alone can embolden academics not to self-censor. They need to?proclaim that a diversity of viewpoints is?not a physical threat to adults who have come to gain knowledge and insights, but is intrinsically associated with that aspiration.

Solutions from 바카라사이트 grassroots are always more effective than those from on high. And defending academic freedom really should not be a hard sell to individuals and institutions that routinely profess 바카라사이트ir devotion to it.

James Tooley is vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트?University of Buckingham.