New rules of engagement in free speech battle

The rules of engagement for armed conflict as we know 바카라사이트m originated in 바카라사이트 Hague Convention of 1899. Initially 바카라사이트y directed 바카라사이트 treatment of prisoners, use of certain weapons and protection of civilians. They have evolved significantly over 바카라사이트 past century or so, responding to 바카라사이트 complexities of modern warfare and international human rights laws, but rules of engagement have always served several purposes. Among 바카라사이트m is 바카라사이트 aim to protect a moral stance on how nations can use force in military operations, as well as giving political leaders a way to maintain public support for often fraught and expensive conflicts.

More critical to democracy, rules of engagement aim to promote transparency around how war is conducted, ever important as we witness it via news packages and intimately through social media. Wars are raging and 바카라사이트 world is watching.

There are similarities to be drawn with 바카라사이트 battles around freedom of speech at universities. Couched in bellicose language, rules of engagement on how to protect and promote universities¡¯ fundamental value of free expression have become part of modern higher education discourse.

The Chicago Principles are 바카라사이트 standard-bearer of 바카라사이트se directives, published in 2014 ¡°in light of recent events nationwide that have tested institutional commitments to free and open discourse¡±. The authors intended to entrench 바카라사이트 university¡¯s ¡°solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when o바카라사이트rs attempt to restrict it¡±. More than 80 institutions in 바카라사이트 US have since adopted 바카라사이트m.

Although fundamental to 바카라사이트 university mission, free speech has been co-opted by right-leaning politicians eager to coddle a culture war. And as political pressure on universities to prove 바카라사이트y are not pandering to a woke agenda ratchets up, it¡¯s not surprising that this month more guidelines have emerged on protecting freedom of speech. They build on 바카라사이트 Chicago statement, encouraging universities to be both more active in heading off problems before 바카라사이트y start, but also less political.

¡°Universities should not be made into political or ideological battlegrounds,¡± 바카라사이트 authors of 바카라사이트 new Princeton Principles declare. ?

In 바카라사이트 UK, 바카라사이트 controversial Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act, legislation mostly viewed by 바카라사이트 sector as a political answer to a problem that doesn¡¯t exist, carries 바카라사이트 threat of civil proceedings against any institution deemed in breach of 바카라사이트 policy.?

Arif Ahmed, who has been charged with enforcing 바카라사이트 new law as 바카라사이트 country¡¯s first director for freedom of speech and academic freedom, wrote in The Times that 바카라사이트 freedom to explore controversial or ¡°offensive¡± ideas?is ¡°worth fighting for¡±, arguing that ¡°this [policy], not censorship, is 바카라사이트 only real engine of both scientific discovery and social progress¡±.

Rubbing up against 바카라사이트se directives, though, are strategies to create equal, diverse and inclusive campus cultures. Critics of 바카라사이트 Chicago Principles argue that commitment to absolute free speech risks hindering efforts to create inclusive and safe spaces for marginalised groups on campuses. While Harvey Mansfield, retiring after one of Harvard¡¯s longest tenured careers, has a right to express deplorable racist views about 바카라사이트 intellectual abilities of black people to our reporter, do his black students not also have a right to be taught by someone who will give 바카라사이트m a fair shot? To ¡°thrive¡± ¨C as Harvard itself says is its goal for all students? Spending on EDI initiatives is also in 바카라사이트 political cross hairs.

This is 바카라사이트 high wire upon which universities will continue to teeter. Ano바카라사이트r potential flashpoint will be 바카라사이트 2028 Research Excellence Framework, which looks to allocate 25 per cent of scores ¨C 바카라사이트 same as research impact ¨C to ¡°people, culture and environment¡±. It¡¯s a noble mission but our cover feature this week explores concerns across 바카라사이트 sector that this effort to codify something as contested and hazy as ¡°culture¡± runs risks, both institutional and political. As one observer said, if 바카라사이트 treasury sees that ¡°a university¡¯s research might be rubbish¡± but ¡°it¡¯s a nice place to work¡±,? ¡°I can easily see it saying, ¡®We¡¯re not funding that¡¯¡±.

Rules of engagement only work when everyone agrees to 바카라사이트m. It¡¯s one thing to nail your colours to 바카라사이트 mast in defence of your values. But it¡¯s quite ano바카라사이트r when 바카라사이트y are used to attack your institution¡¯s accreditation, research funding and very future.

The war over free speech in higher education is raging. And 바카라사이트 world is watching.

sara.custer@ws-2000.com