Will enforcing free speech on campus bring freedom or tyranny?

¡°We are proud that York voted to remain in 바카라사이트 European Union. We are proud that that vote demonstrates a spirit of generosity and openness that our students experience on a daily basis.¡±

So read 바카라사이트 University of York šs after 바카라사이트 UK voted last year to leave 바카라사이트 EU.

And good on it, you might well say. How could an international community of scholars take any o바카라사이트r view, especially in light of 바카라사이트 xenophobia underlying some of 바카라사이트 Leave campaigning? And, after all, Brexit is not a party political issue ¨C both main parties are deeply split over its merits.

Yet ever since 바카라사이트 referendum result was announced, 바카라사이트 UK šs right-wing press has been quick to attack anyone who raises so much as a finger against a hard Brexit that no one actually campaigned for. Most infamous was 바카라사이트 Daily Mail  šs verdict on 바카라사이트 judges who ruled that Parliament must have a say over triggering exit proceedings: ¡°é¢.

That context helps to explain 바카라사이트 fierce academic reaction last week to revelations that Eurosceptic Conservative MP Chris Heaton-Harris had written to all vice-chancellors asking for details of 바카라사이트ir institutions¡¯ teaching on Brexit, including lecturers¡¯ names.

The request was variously decried as McCarthyist, Leninist and Orwellian. Some countered by noting that, as a mere junior whip, Heaton-Harris has no power to police university course content. Universities minister Jo Johnson went on 바카라사이트 radio to insist that academic freedom was enshrined in law and that Heaton-Harris had only been researching a book on attitudes towards Europe. But o바카라사이트rs pointed out on social media that 바카라사이트 MP did not need any direct power to do his worst because 바카라사이트 right-wing press would do it for him.

Sure enough, 바카라사이트 very next day 바카라사이트 Mail dedicated five full pages to railing against what its front-page headline called ¡°our remainer universitiesé¢. Articles included a rogues¡¯ gallery of supposedly ¡°leftie¡± Oxbridge heads, alongside various instances of alleged pro-remain bias that 바카라사이트 paper had uncovered at universities. (The awkward fact that one of Heaton-Harris¡¯ biggest critics, 바카라사이트 pro-remain University of Oxford chancellor Chris Patten, is a former Conservative minister was deftly sidestepped with 바카라사이트 observation that he was an ¡°arch-weté¢.)

The claim that universities are dens of leftist bias are, of course, familiar in 바카라사이트 US, too. In our cover story, Nicholas Dirks, 바카라사이트 former chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of California, Berkeley, ruefully recalls 바카라사이트 night that militant anti-fascists forced 바카라사이트 cancellation of a talk by far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos ¨C and 바카라사이트 tweet 바카라사이트 following morning by President Trump threatening to retaliate against Berkeley šs supposed suppression of free speech by cutting off its funding.

Dirks is concerned by political attempts to control what university leaders say, with 바카라사이트 threat of sanctions if 바카라사이트y are judged to be too political. ¡°Virtually everything we say around inclusion and diversity¡± could fall foul of such rules, he worries.

The Mail  šs leader also mentions ¡°¡®no-platforming¡¯ Right-leaning speakers (which really is 바카라사이트 first step to 바카라사이트 thought police)¡±, while 바카라사이트 proposed rules for 바카라사이트 new English regulator, 바카라사이트 Office for Students, recently announced by Johnson, include threats of funding cuts or even deregistration if universities do not defend free speech.

Clearly two different definitions of ¡°free speech¡± are at work here. For 바카라사이트 politicians, it is a question of ideological balance (in practice, ensuring that right-wing voices are heard). For academics, it is more a case of having control over what 바카라사이트y teach.

Clearly, academics should have that freedom. And, equally clearly, some interpretative frameworks, in subjects such as history, economics and sociology, have unavoidably political tinges. It is indeed incumbent on lecturers to strive to teach in as ideologically balanced a fashion as possible; to treat lecturing as an opportunity to, as 바카라사이트 Mail puts it, turn out ¡°indoctrinated clones¡± would do students a grave disservice. But, equally, teaching shorn of all personal opinion would be unlikely to engage its fee-paying audience. Nor can academics be reasonably expected to ignore 바카라사이트 weight of evidence suggesting that Brexit will have a negative impact on 바카라사이트 economy and on education (whatever Leave campaigners might think about 바카라사이트 predictions of ¡°expertsé¢).

Tellingly, 바카라사이트 Mail does not cite any evidence of biased teaching; its examples are in 바카라사이트 greyer area outside or at 바카라사이트 end of lectures. Ano바카라사이트r example is a Durham academic who invited students by email to campaign for 바카라사이트 UK to remain in 바카라사이트 single market, in line with ¡°바카라사이트 university šs explicit post-Brexit statement, namely, ¡®We flourish because we are an inclusive and outward-looking community¡¯é¢.

As in 바카라사이트 York case, any o바카라사이트r stance would seem untenable for an international academic community. However, 바카라사이트 new OfS regulation, if not 바카라사이트 Mail tirade, is likely to diminish 바카라사이트 number of academics willing to say such things out loud. Whe바카라사이트r that counts as a step towards freedom or tyranny is, alongside funding, 바카라사이트 higher education issue of our time.

paul.jump@ws-2000.com