University breached the Professors’ rights
The University of Essex has today published Akua Reindorf’s Review of two events involving external speakers, concerning the controversy surrounding events at which Professor Jo Phoenix (Open University) and Professor Rosa Freedman (University of Reading) had been invited to speak.
The report concludes that the University breached the Professors’ rights to freedom of expression because of preconceptions about their views on trans rights and gender identity.
It was in breach of statutory duties and its own policies.
In Professor Phoenix’s case, a seminar which she was due to give in December 2019 was cancelled at the last minute because of threats of disruption. A flyer was circulated in the University bearing an image of a cartoon character pointing a gun and the words “SHUT THE F*** UP, TERF”. The report concluded that proper use of the University’s external speaker notification procedure would have averted the last minute panic which resulted in the cancellation. Thereafter, a decision was taken to not invite Professor Phoenix to give another seminar because of concerns that she would engage in “hate speech” against trans people. The report concluded that this amounted to blacklisting and was unlawful, and that there was no reasonable basis for thinking that Professor Phoenix might use unlawful speech of any kind.
That’s the thing about the category of “hate speech” against trans people – it’s defined so very broadly by the people who accuse that when an adult looks into it, it turns out to be a great big zero. Children squawk “But she will hate-speak!!!” and for some unfathomable reason institutions jump to disinvite and shun the invited speaker while the children celebrate another victory.
Professor Freedman was invited to take part in a roundtable discussion in January 2020 on the subject of The State of Antisemitism Today, as part of the University’s Holocaust Memorial Week event. After concerns were raised about her views on sex and gender the invitation was effectively rescinded. A member of the University posted a tweet comparing her views to Holocaust denial. The report concluded that the withdrawal of the invitation to Professor Freedman was particularly egregious because she had been invited to speak on a matter which was entirely unconnected to sex and gender and which was of particular personal significance to her.
But the children wanted her punished, and what the children want, the children get. Why is that? When the quality of their thought is so crude and empty, why is that?
he University’s apologies to the Professors and the actions which it intends to take in response to the report’s recommendations have been published on its website. The University intends to implement all of the recommendations save for the recommendation that it give consideration to the relative benefits and disbenefits of its relationship with Stonewall in light of the drawbacks and potential illegalities identified in the report as having arisen from that relationship.
That’s unfortunate. Stonewall is terrible. Universities should walk away from it – they should “disinvite” it, as it were.
I’ve actually come to the conclusion that all the attempts to disinvite Mister “The Bell Curve” shouldn’t have been given in to either (I think they deplatformed him?) and he’s a fucking arsehole.
Student group or whatever invites a speaker to campus -> people who don’t like them protest -> event goes on as planned. That should be how it is, just say no to the mob veto in the name of free speech.
>A flyer was circulated in the University bearing an image of a cartoon character pointing a gun and the words “SHUT THE F*** UP, TERF”
How progressive
BKiSA,
Not sure about the specific case of Murray, but I agree that “disinvitation” should be rare. If you invited someone to speak, even if you made a bad call, that’s on you. Unless you have new information that is directly relevant to the question of whether or not the speaker will deliver what you reasonably expected, you should just suck it up and stand by your invite. Sure, if you learn that the person you invited to speak about topic X actually has a track record of showing up and ranting about unrelated topic Y, or sexually harasses people or otherwise poses a threat, you should rescind. But if it’s just another “we have learned that Speaker A has Bad Views on another subject that make him or her a Bad Person who must not be allowed on campus lest it make Good People sad,” then I would say suck it up and say “we invited A to speak about X because A is knowledgeable about that issue and we think people are interested in it. Our invitation is not an endorsement of A’s views even on topic X, let alone on any unrelated issue.”
I also question the wisdom of most protests of speakers at universities, unless it’s a particular honor, and/or the speaker is being foisted on an audience who didn’t ask for it, like commencement speakers. If the College Republicans want to invite whoever the 2021 version of Milo Yiannoplous is to show up and speak to the couple of dozen of their members who care enough to show up at some lecture hall, then just ignore them. Having a huge protest just amplifies their message, not yours, and gives the Milos of the world the publicity on which they make their money.
The one issue I find genuinely tricky has to do with security expenses. On the one hand, forcing student groups to pay for added security because they invited a controversial speaker risks creating a heckler’s veto, where opponents can make it prohibitively expensive to invite speakers by threatening violence. On the other hand, I can understand a university not wanting to drain its security budget because one small student group likes to play provocateur and invite the most odious speakers they can find in the hopes of stirring up shit.
When I was in my undergrad, back when dinosaurs still roamed the earth, my Political Sociology prof invited the head of the local John Birch Society to speak to our class. None of us agreed with anything the man said, including the prof, a liberal and an atheist. But it was valuable. We learned from the experience. And we listened, asked polite but pointed questions, made him a little nervous, and he left convinced he swayed our opinion. His conversation stayed on the topics he was invited to speak about.
I have been to many seminars and talks with controversial speakers, some I didn’t agree with, others I did. It did me no harm, sharpened my critical thinking skills by forcing me to engage with the other side’s arguments, and strengthened my own view because I had to defend against new ideas (when it didn’t change my view).
Students have no idea what sort of education they are missing by refusing to hear any speakers they disagree with. Maybe they don’t want education. A lot of students only want a piece of paper claiming they have an education.
My experience has been much like ink last’s. I suspect that holds true for much of ‘our’ generation. I’ve noted a strong desire in many young people not to have their currently held belief systems challenged. I understand that, it can be discomforting. Then again it can be exciting, revolutionary, and a moment of evolution. I guess if you keep telling yourself (or are told by someone else) that you’re right and that’s that, your world just crumbles away with the first chip. Applies to left and right.
1) Person is invited to speak.
2) Leaflets threatening person and calling her names are circulated.
3) Person is found guilty of future hate crimes.
I mean, maybe there was another step between 2 and 3 where someone looked into what I will loosely call allegations of Terfdom that isn’t mentioned. Maybe some genocidal tweets were unearthed. Especially if something like “I’m not convinced someone with a penis can be accurately described as a woman” counts. But still, I would have thought that the next logical step after 2 would be a stern “this is a place of learning and threats and abuse is not how we engage with people we disagree with”.