Manchester – The fear of free speech
On Tuesday 24th September 2024, Politics in Pubs Manchester met at the Welcome Inn, Bury Old Road, Whitefield, M45 6TA for a discussion on the fear of free speech. The discussion was led by Professor Dennis Hayes who is the director of the influential campaign group Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF).
Introduction
For almost two decades at the beginning of each new academic year Dennis has been asked by the press and media – what is the prospect like for free speech in universities? His answer has almost always been ‘DIRE’! That is the answer he gives now.
Universities should be a beacon of free speech for wider society, but they have become ideologically captured and tell academics and students what to think rather than how to think. The trouble is hardly anyone – neither academics nor individuals – believes in free speech. The idea that free speech is the foundational value has been lost.
Do you believe in free speech?
Dennis began by asking the above question and explained that the answer he receives most often is “Yes, I believe in free speech but….”. He pointed out that adding the word ‘but’ clearly demonstrates that the respondent DOESN’T believe in free speech.
Thinkers past and present, such as Holmes, Mills and Mullen, have asked questions like: Should falsely shouting “Fire” in a crowded theatre in order to cause panic be outside the scope of free speech protections? Is any silencing of the expression of speech justified or is it an attack on humanity? Are our beliefs close to the centre of who we are – if so, is our humanity being denied if we are not free to expose our beliefs to criticism?
“You can’t say that…”
Free speech must include the right to speak evil. If free speech is lost, freedom is lost. Free speech exposes the speaker to unrestricted critical scrutiny and enables the refinement of ideas and understanding. Dennis believes that in universities, application of the principle of defending the rights of others to express the views you hate is ‘messy’, partly because of the narcissistic demand for ‘psychological safety’ when ideas are being debated.
The Banned List
People who speak out about the obvious differences between biological sex and the concept of self-identified gender are often referred to as holding ‘gender critical’ views. The expression – and frequent silencing – of gender critical views has highlighted a significant free speech issue. AFAF’s website maintains a ‘Banned List’ cataloguing public incidences where academics have been – or faced campaigns to have them – banned, silenced or sacked for their views on gender and other topics. Regardless of whether any formal consequence will be applied, the process of pursuing an academic for exercising their right to free speech is often used to ‘punish’ them into submission.
The People vs Larry Flynt
Larry Flynt, founder and publisher of Hustler magazine, elicited a significant free speech judgement from the Supreme Court in 1988 when Chief Justice William Rehnquist said:
“At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern,” Rehnquist found. “[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/supreme-court-upholds-parody-feb-24-1988-235239
Sunlight is the best disinfectant
The following words were spoken by Justice Mr. Louis Brandeis during a trial in 1927 by the U.S. Supreme Court (Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center, 274 U.S. 357, 1927 (Whitney v. California)).
‘If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression.’
Questions and comments
Q. Is there more fear of free speech in American universities than in British ones?
Q. ‘No-platforming’ was being pushed by a minority back in 1981 – is it worse now? Why is the political establishment seemingly so against free speech? And how can we push back?
DH Academics can be dismissive of opinions which are not backed up by research. The reluctance to engage with people and hear their views can lead to ‘group think’ and a reduction in the standard of teaching and learning. Opinions of all kinds are necessary for the creation of new thoughts in science and other disciplines. This should be the basis of academic freedom. Moral responsibility for actions carried out in response to free speech lies with the actor not with the speaker. Matt Goodwin and Eric Kaufman both describe how universities have been ‘captured’ by EDI culture instead of abiding by the Kalven Principle of institutional neutrality and making no statements on political and social issues. Universities must not become critics but create the conditions in which academics and students can flourish as critics. Some members of the establishment may see free speech as a right wing threat but speech is just spoken words, not actions.
Q Can the state tell you to be free?
Q Why are we in the West becoming less resilient to hurty words (e.g. sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me).
Q Are universities in the UK and USA already lost? It seems that 95% of staff share the same world view and find it hard not to vote for their own demise in the General Election even after being hounded for their views.
DH Universities aren’t yet lost. Sussex University, which backed Professor Stock’s right to free speech until she felt compelled to resign, subsequently held a seminar on free speech for its students. The ‘sticks and stones’ attitude has been replaced by a therapeutic culture where mental health problems are seen as the norm. This is not helpful to the free speech cause.
Q Does the university environment encourage mental health problems?
DH Since the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 there seems to have been a focus upon ‘victimhood’ and vulnerability and a surge in therapy groups. For example, after the EU Referendum in 2016, some therapy sessions were offered in universities.
Q Does refusing to invite a speaker to talk on a topic I disagree with mean I am against free speech?
DH Not necessarily. The ‘my house, my rules’ position is perfectly acceptable. For example, while paedophiles should have the right to free speech, they do not have the right to act on that speech. And you have the right not to invite them to speak at your event.
Q. Is there a twang of Marxism about the war on free speech?
DH Not really because that would require a collective and there aren’t any revolutionary organisers who don’t hate the working class at the moment.
Q Do those who seek to stifle free speech suffer from a lack of knowledge and understanding e.g. those who sought to silence the 17th Century astronomer Gallileo Galilei?
Q There is much inconsistency in the way authorities respond to free speech and free will. For example, lengthy custodial sentences for those making social media posts about civil unrest triggered by the murder of children in Southport, compared to the suspended six month sentence given to Huw Edwards. Many people were also targeted for ‘misinformation’ during Covid even though some of what they said was true. Is the attack on free speech more about controlling the narrative than protecting people from harm?
Q Some university graduates lack critical thinking, debating skills and resilience and this is not good for the workplace.
Q Universities are now a branch of industry and they try to attract overseas students from places like China. How might this be influencing university policies in the drive to avoid putting off their ‘customers’?
DH Elites are afraid of working class people, hence the recent harsh sentences to deter people from becoming organised. Higher Education has been subjected to ‘McDonaldisation’ making it less critical, radical and creative, and much more commercial. Combined with conversion to the ‘therapeutic university’ where students are seen as emotionally vulnerable and incapable of coping with challenging ideas – and actual or threatened violent physical attacks on free speech elsewhere – we have learned not to be offensive. Even the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders seems to have made it ‘easier’ for people to qualify for a mental health issue. Regarding the commercialisation of universities and its effect on their policies see the following article:
Many thanks to Dennis for leading an interesting discussion about the fear of free speech. Thanks also to our hosts at The Welcome Inn.
About
Professor Dennis Hayes is the director of the influential campaign group Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF). He is a visiting Professor at the University of Buckingham and an Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of Derby.
He is the author of several books on education, including two edited books on the McDonaldisation of Higher Education. His controversial co-authored book The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education (2019 [2008]) has been described as ‘one of the most important books to have been written in at least the last twenty years in that crucial area where philosophy, policy and practice coincide’. His latest book is The Death of Academic Freedom? Free speech and censorship on campus (forthcoming 2024).
Twitter: @ProfDHayes
Forthcoming Events
Manchester – Comedy Unleashed, Thursday 3rd October 2024, 7pm (doors open at 6.30pm)
If you are a fan of stand-up comedy and laughter, this is the event for you. This is the first of two Comedy Unleashed events this month. Please note this event is taking pace at Whiskey Down, 22 Lloyd Street, Manchester M2 5WA. Get your tickets here:
https://comedyunleashed.co.uk/manchester-gigs/
Manchester – Cancelling Cancel Culture presents What does it mean to be ‘English’ in 2024? Sunday 13th October 2024, 2pm
Why is it ok to be proud to be Scottish, Welsh, Irish, etc, but being proud to be English is somehow negative. Is there such a thing as “English Values?” “English Identity?” Why do many in the political establishment and in the media treat any sentiment of English populism and pride with such disdain, branding this as far right, fascist or racist? Please join us at The Briton’s Protection, 50 Great Bridgewater Street, Manchester M1 5LE to analyse these questions and more…
London – Politics in Pubs will host a stand at the Battle of Ideas, Saturday 19th and Sunday 20th October 2024
We are delighted once again to have a stall at the Battle of Ideas festival in London on Saturday 19 & Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster. There will be a 20% discount available to Politics in Pubs members. Find out more here including discounted tickets for members. We would love to hear from anyone thinking about starting their own group and we can explain how easy this is and what support we can provide.
Manchester – Politics in Pubs presents a talk on the National Health Service, Tuesday 22nd October 2024 7.30pm ****Please note temporary change of venue****
Since its inception in 1948, the NHS has been a cornerstone of British society, symbolising our commitment to healthcare for all, free at the point of use. It is a system we hold dear, and rightly so, as it embodies the principles of equity and compassion. However, like any institution, it has its share of challenges and successes. How has the NHS has weathered the storms of crisis and lack of investment in light of recent government changes and spending? You are warmly invited to join the discussion at our temporary venue The Briton’s Protection in Manchester,
Manchester – Comedy Unleashed, Thursday 31st October 2024, 7pm (doors open at 6.30pm)
The second Comedy Unleashed event of October will take place at Impossible, 36 Peter Street, Manchester M2 5QR. Get your tickets here: