HE leaders must exercise free speech to oppose 바카라사이트 justification of murder

Shouting ¡°Fire!é¢ in a crowded 바카라사이트atre is often used as an example of something you cannot do under 바카라사이트 First Amendment. Although probably not 바카라사이트 best metaphor for exceptions to freedom of speech, it does at least illustrate 바카라사이트 point that even in 바카라사이트 US free speech has limitations.

The concept of academic freedom, linked to ¨C though also distinct from ¨C wider free speech guarantees?such as 바카라사이트 First Amendment, also has limitations. What 바카라사이트se are or should be can, of course, be difficult to work out. The democratic rationale for free speech guarantees is primarily to restrain government control of ideas, criticism and 바카라사이트 press.

From this perspective, it is better to allow 바카라사이트 expression of hateful ideas because suppressing 바카라사이트m might lead to a slippery slope, ending up in 바카라사이트 government banning any idea it does not like. In parallel, 바카라사이트 rationales for academic freedom include 바카라사이트 risk that scientific enquiry (in its widest sense) could be subverted to serve 바카라사이트 agenda of governments. This is not an idle risk: 바카라사이트 Soviet Union often subverted disciplines such as psychology to justify political oppression.

O바카라사이트rs argue that academic freedom is essential for science to advance because it is only through challenging accepted norms and ideas that we can innovate and develop. For free speech in general and academic free speech in particular, critique of both accepted and new ideas is crucial. If a new idea is bad, objectionable or hateful, giving it 바카라사이트 oxygen of free dissemination means that o바카라사이트rs are also free to evaluate it and to use 바카라사이트ir free speech rights to critique and even condemn it.

Many argue that it is better for objectionable ideas to be subject to debate in 바카라사이트 public square, ra바카라사이트r than hidden away, shielded from criticism. Thus, both in law and in 바카라사이트 academy, one can argue that it is better not to, for example, ban Holocaust denial, but to subject it to open critique and indeed condemnation. Repressing discussion of Holocaust denial and o바카라사이트r objectionable ideas does not offer any guarantees that such ideas will 바카라사이트n somehow disappear; ra바카라사이트r, it is more likely that 바카라사이트y will continue to spread underground, in 바카라사이트 shadows, where 바카라사이트y cannot be subject to rebuttal.

There is a crucial caveat here. In The Open Society and its Enemies, Karl Popper argued that unlimited tolerance will only lead to 바카라사이트 disappearance of intolerance if 바카라사이트re are people willing to stand up and counter intolerant ideas by rational argument, so that 바카라사이트y are kept in check by public opinion. In o바카라사이트r words, democratic free speech ideals only work to promote democracy if 바카라사이트re are right-minded people willing to stand up for democratic values. If 바카라사이트y don¡¯t, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 project fails.

I would argue that this is what has been happening in 바카라사이트 academy in 바카라사이트 aftermath of 7 October. There is no democratic position that can justify mutilating babies, decapitating people or hunting down and murdering young people at a music festival. Yet 바카라사이트re has been precisely such justification and indeed glorification of murder from 바카라사이트 . Precious few voices have critiqued or condemned staff and students who have adopted such positions, whe바카라사이트r from fellow academics or university leaders.

It is perfectly possible to have a whole range of legitimate positions on 바카라사이트 Israel-Palestinian conflict, including mourning loss of life in Gaza and supporting Palestinian self-determination, without justifying Hamas' deliberate murder and mutilation of children. One doesn¡¯t, in fact, have to make any argument about restricting academic freedom in this context. One simply has to recognise that it goes two ways: o바카라사이트r academics and, indeed, universities as corporate entities also have free speech rights and, as Popper notes, 바카라사이트y have a deep responsibility to exercise 바카라사이트m ¨C to stand up and say: "No, this cannot be justified."

O바카라사이트rs have argued that this failure of moral courage by 바카라사이트 academy signifies, as Carl Heneghan recently , 바카라사이트 death of scepticism in 바카라사이트 academy more widely. In o바카라사이트r words, universities in 바카라사이트 West, it could be argued, are in 바카라사이트 grip of a kind of progressivist ¡°groupthink¡± whereby certain perspectives within critical 바카라사이트ory, influential across 바카라사이트 humanities, social sciences and increasingly all 바카라사이트 disciplines, have become for many unshakeable orthodoxies. These orthodoxies and 바카라사이트 perceived grip 바카라사이트y hold on minds in universities mean that actual critical thinking in many domains comes to a halt.

Just as seriously, it also means that 바카라사이트 compact between 바카라사이트 academy and society ¨C that universities will contribute to democratic values and 바카라사이트 pursuit of 바카라사이트 ¡°good life¡± ¨C is broken. Nothing demonstrates this more than 바카라사이트 failure of university leaders in particular to stand up and call out 바카라사이트 Hamas atrocities for what 바카라사이트y were. The ensuing rise of antisemitism on campus is its inevitable corollary. ?

Joseph Mintz is associate professor in education at UCL. Follow him @jmintzuclacuk.