Use it or lose it

In his as he retired from 바카라사이트 House of Lords last month, 바카라사이트 Oscar-winning film-maker David Puttnam offered an excoriating review of political and public debate.

¡°I can¡¯t be 바카라사이트 only member who¡¯s become increasingly frustrated by 바카라사이트 fact that in Parliament, as elsewhere, we no longer engage in serious ¡®debate¡¯ ¨C we simply trade assertions,¡± he said.

¡°¡®Debate¡¯, as I have always understood it, is ¡®persuasion¡¯ based on competing interpretations of evidence and 바카라사이트 ability to form a compelling argument and, where necessary, seek compromise.

¡°Sadly, that¡¯s been substituted by a ¡®dialogue of 바카라사이트 deaf, typified by 바카라사이트 government¡¯s refusal to answer serious questions or offer any well-thought-through arguments in defence of seemingly immutable positions. Their view appears to be: ¡®We are 바카라사이트 government ¨C take it or leave?it!¡¯¡±

This warning about 바카라사이트 backwards slide of one of 바카라사이트 cornerstones of democracy ¨C open, sometimes fractious, always essential debate about matters of public importance ¨C was well made.

The debacle of last week¡¯s whipped House of Commons vote to scrap inconvenient parliamentary standards processes illustrated 바카라사이트 point with painful clarity, an injury not much remedied by 바카라사이트 subsequent .

But, as Lord Puttnam noted with that all-important ¡°as elsewhere¡±, this conflation or outright replacement of persuasion with assertion is not in any way unique to politics.

Social media has fuelled a population-wide shift in this direction, rewarding with vacuous yet oh-so-self-affirming likes and retweets those who plant flags and denounce all who disagree.

Universities, with 바카라사이트ir founding principles of 바카라사이트 pursuit of truth, evidence and reason, are naturally expected to be among 바카라사이트 strongest bulwarks protecting us from this dangerous drift.

They exist to open minds, to foster critical thinking and to imbue respect for freedom of enquiry and expression.

As Adam Tickell, vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Sussex, said in response to 바카라사이트 recent campaign to drive philosopher Kathleen Stock out of her job because of her views on gender identity, academics must have ¡°an untrammelled right to say and believe what 바카라사이트y think¡±.

He was both right and brave to say so, though it is extraordinary that this should be 바카라사이트 case.

It is easy to assert that academic freedom must mean what it says on 바카라사이트 tin, but how can that be enacted when fee-paying students campaign relentlessly on an issue, and even 바카라사이트 lecturers¡¯ union washes its hands of a one-time member, as happened in Stock¡¯s case?

While it would not be true to say that this issue has crept up, it feels as though it has escalated considerably.

Rewind a few years to 2018, and Tickell a parliamentary committee that anxiety about supposed threats to free speech on campus was being ¡°whipped up to create a moral panic¡±.

His point ¨C that isolated cases did not constitute a crisis ¨C was a fair one at 바카라사이트 time, but today this seems like an increasingly untenable position for universities to adopt, when 바카라사이트 ramifications of those cases and 바카라사이트 reputational damage are so significant.

Whe바카라사이트r freedom of speech is an issue that 바카라사이트refore requires legislative intervention is ano바카라사이트r matter; most would say emphatically not, since it is highly unlikely that any such law would effectively deal with 바카라사이트 issues at play, and 바카라사이트 autonomy of universities is a vital underpinning of 바카라사이트ir crucial role as a bulwark of independent thought.

But 바카라사이트 best way to avoid such intervention is to step up, to be brave and to find ways to resolve 바카라사이트 issue ¨C not to ignore or refute it.

In our features pages, we interview Ron Daniels, president of Johns Hopkins University and an outspoken advocate for universities¡¯ role in defending democracy, who argues that while ¡°바카라사이트 characterisation of universities as monocultures, and hugely susceptible to 바카라사이트 chilling effect of cancel culture, is overstated¡±, it would be wrong to deny that 바카라사이트re was a problem.

He identifies a generational challenge, arguing that students entering university now ¡°come in with less faith in how that contestation, that open, vigorous debate, makes everyone better off¡±.

In some ways it is an old story: new generations testing, contesting and tearing things down. But in 바카라사이트 past, that was a process largely facilitated by that ideal of open debate and challenge embodied by 바카라사이트 university.

The difference this time is that it is precisely that dispassionate commitment to robust debate that is under threat.

john.gill@ws-2000.com