Ten days ago I reported on a kerfuffle at the University of Cambridge, in which a group of faculty, led by philosopher Arif Ahmed, were trying to eliminate the University speech policy‘s stipulation that community members “respect” each other’s viewpoints. Here’s one of the three policy statements to which people objected; emphasis is mine:
The University of Cambridge, as a world-leading education and research institution, is fully committed to the principle, and to the promotion, of freedom of speech and expression. The University’s core values are ‘freedom of thought and expression’ and ‘freedom from discrimination’. The University fosters an environment in which all of its staff and students can participate fully in University life, and feel able to question and test received wisdom, and to express new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions within the law, without fear of disrespect or discrimination. In exercising their right to freedom of expression, the University expects its staff, students and visitors to be respectful of the differing opinions of others, in line with the University’s core value of freedom of expression. The University also expects its staff, students and visitors to be respectful of the diverse identities of others, in line with the University’s core value of freedom from discrimination. While debate and discussion may be robust and challenging, all speakers have a right to be heard when exercising their right to free speech within the law.
Similar restrictions appeared in two other paragraphs of the speech code, and irked writers like Stephen Fry and Nick Cohen, both of whom wrote editorials arguing that “respect” wasn’t the right word. For while one can respect an opponent as a human being to be treated civilly, there is no good reason to be respectful of opinions. Both Fry and Cohen emphasized that the operative word was “tolerance”: one can tolerate both opponents and their opinions—and argue with them if you don’t like the opinions—but you don’t have to give them respect.
As Nick Cohen wrote in his Spectator column today (see below):
As I explained in The Spectator last week, the distinction between respect and tolerance goes to the heart of today’s raging debates on free speech. To tolerate an opponent is to refrain from punishing him or her for their views. You remain free to offend and challenge them. You most certainly have no obligation to respect ideas you regard as ignorant or dangerous or both. ‘Respect,’ by contrast, is a slippery concept that should set off alarm bells. Respect can be hard earned and freely given. Yet gangsters also demand it at the point of a gun. What version of the word did Cambridge mean when when it said staff and students must ‘respect’ differing opinions?
Could Cambridge ban an atheist speaker for refusing to respect religion? Or a feminist for failing to respect transwomen? Should scientists treat anti-vaxxers with respect and hold back for fear of hurting their tender feelings and offending their dignity?
I know from trying last week that no one in the university’s hierarchy could answer these questions. Indeed Roger Mosey, former editorial director at the BBC and master of Selwyn College, later admitted, ‘In retrospect, respectful might not have been the word we should have chosen.’
Well, Cambridge took a vote yesterday on its speech code, and on three amendments that would change “respect” to “tolerance”, as well as to eliminate restrictions that would have made it harder to bring in outside speakers who violated nebulous provisions about “risking the safety” of individuals in the community. As the BBC reports (click on screenshot below), all three amendments—#1 changed the paragraph above, altering “respect” to “tolerance”, while #2 and #3 eliminated free-speech restrictions for outside speakers—were overwhelmingly approved:
Here’s the official vote, as reported by the University, taken among members of the Regent House, the University’s governing body:
Those are all lopsided votes in favor of free speech. In these days of increasing calls for restrictions on speech, this is something to be celebrated. Although the change of wording from “respect” to “tolerance” may seem trivial, it is in fact important in affirming that views themselves are never entitled to respect just because they’re views. That, in fact, is deeply connected with the misguided idea that you shouldn’t say anything that would cause people “harm”, meaning “offense.” And we don’t want to unduly restrict speakers just because what they say might be considered “harmful.”
In his new column in the Spectator, Nick Cohen also applauds the vote (click on screenshot) but also calls out the Cambridge community for suppressing speech. Click on screenshot below:
Cohen’s approbation:
Academics at Cambridge won a cheering victory for free speech today when they voted by an overwhelming majority to reject plans from the vice-chancellor to change the rules governing debate at the university.
And Cohen’s denunciation:
Yet here is what is telling about [the debate on the amendments]. As soon as anyone chose a side, you knew without needing to be told where they stood in today’s culture wars. The Cambridge branch of the University and College Union showed how hopelessly it has lost touch with its members when it recommended that they should not vote for Ahmed’s amendment. Ahmed said that his colleagues not only had a strong commitment to freedom of expression and academic freedom but were worried about threats to those who spoke out of turn.
Cambridge itself witnessed class-based thought policing recently when students at Clare College damned one of their porters as ‘unfit both to hold public office and to be in a position of responsibility over students.’ Kevin Price was a Labour councillor as well as a porter. His crime was to refuse to accept a motion from his local party that stated ‘Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary individuals are non-binary.’
Students, largely drawn from the middle and upper classes, were trying to get a working man fired because his views, expressed outside the college workplace, did not conform with current left orthodoxy. The right may exaggerate the threat to freedom of speech in the universities, in part as cover for its threats to the BBC. But that does not mean that there aren’t real fears. Academics, public sector workers, liberal journalists and artists can all cite examples of intimidation and censorship and of the cloying culture of fear that follows.
Cohen, whose Leftist credentials are impeccable, is nevertheless standing up for the right to say things that upset “current left orthodoxy.” And that’s the way it should be, for the Left have historically had confidence in the marketplace of ideas. Apparently having lost some of that confidence, they’re now trying to enforce Righthink by fiat rather than debate.
And yes, there are real fears about losing freedom of speech. I’m worried about that in my own university, as various departments and units of the University, contravening official policy and statements by our administration, use authoritarian methods to chill the speech of others. But more on that later.
Just remember that if universities don’t permit, and, indeed, encourage free speech—especially public schools that must adhere to the First Amendment—American society will gradually pull the teeth from that Amendment. And although Britain has no First Amendment, people like Ahmed, Cohen, Fry, and members of the Cambridge governing body must be eternally vigilant against attempts of both Left and Right to silence those whose opinions they dislike.
The Guardian ran an article yesterday, and gave the truly awful and racist bigot Chiyamvada Gopal the chance to reiterate her anti-liberal, regressive views. She even described the latest developments as “freeze peach”, a term that seemed to originate from F***T******B****.
Good to hear Arif Ahmed supporting liberal values and freedom of speech. I recall he gave Christian apologist W.L. Craig a good drubbing a few years ago. A genuine progressive.
Here’s what she said at this site:
Prof Priyamvada Gopal, an academic at the university, tweeted: “There is no ‘free speech row’ at Cambridge. There is the university scrambling to follow government orders based on false moral panic, there are the poor students trying to make it less draconian, & there are the Freeze Peach brigade trying to stop the right to protest.”
What encouraging and surprising news!
Terrific!
Excellent news. It illustrates the fact that the authoritarian woke are really smaller than they appear. They are loud, but not representative.
The pushback slowly, gradually gaining, I think.
How pleasing it is to wake and see good free speech news! A nice change from the norm displayed by America. I hope more of our colleges will follow Cambridge’s example from hereon.
And now: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/dec/10/cambridge-university-urged-to-re-invite-rightwing-academic-jordan-peterson
Which seems fair enough – these people need to be challenged in public.
Well done Cambridge. The lopsided votes are encouraging.
The pushback against this crap needs to continue.
Anyone proposing banning “hate speech” needs to provide a closed definition of “hate speech” and to provide the exact procedures for choosing who will decide what is “hate speech”.
Michael Hari was recently convicted of bombing the Dar al-Farooq Islamic Center in Bloomington, Minnesota, on August 5, 2017. Great. This makes perfect sense.
But NPR says, “The leader of an anti-government white supremacist militia group and former sheriff’s deputy has been convicted of hate crime charges”
No, he was convicted of (5 counts on the indictment):
1. Intentionally Defacing, Damaging, and Destroying any Religious Real Property Because of the Religious Character of that Property
2. Intentionally Obstructing, and Attempting to Obstruct, by Force and the Threat of Force, the Free Exercise of Religious Beliefs
3. Conspiracy to Commit Federal Felonies by Means of Fire and Explosives
4. Carrying and Using a Destructive Device During and in Relation to Crimes of Violence
5. Possession of an Unregistered Destructive Device
“Cambridge . . . students . . . damned one of their porters . . .
Students, largely drawn from the middle and upper classes, were trying to get a working man fired because his views . . . .”
How irksome, infuriating. To what bloody class do these students fancy themselves to belong – the “non-working” class?
I need to pin down the Cambridge definition of “porter.” To me porter means “transporter,” transporting stuff from Pt. A to Pt. B. I gather porters do the heavy lifting of moving students’ stuff into and out of their rooms, or wherever. I perceive porters are at the beck and call of students. I want to see these self-absorbed and entitled students sweat from doing a bit of manual labor.
Wiki lists the following as the main duties of Oxbridge porters:
Controlling entry to the college
Sorting mail
Providing security to members
Reporting students to the Dean
Maintenance and repairs to college property
These aren’t the same kind of porters they used to have at Billingsgate Fish Market or dockside businesses; it’s quite a different kind of job. This is much more a middle class than working class occupation.
I am both relieved and surprised that Cambridge went this way. I hate to have to say it, but I expected much worse of them, based on their recent history.
I’m not surprised. The regressive left don’t really have much support. They just shout loudly.