Academic Freedom Under Threat: What’s to be Done? Session 1.1

Summary

The speaker discusses the growing challenges to free speech in academic environments, particularly focusing on events at universities where attempts at no-platforming were made. They reflect on their experiences, including an event in Pittsburgh that was met with public and internal opposition, and a similar incident at the University of Bristol. Through empirical data, they debunk claims of harm and highlight how the pressure to maintain reputations and public image is leading to more universities standing up for free speech. The speaker emphasizes the need for a tipping point where universities collectively defend open debate and academic freedom.

Takeaways

• 😀 The speaker describes facing intense pressure and attempts at no-platforming due to controversial academic debates on race and free speech.
• 😀 Various events highlighted the tension between defending free speech and the push from certain groups to silence controversial ideas.
• 😀 University staff and students sometimes face internal and external pressure to distance themselves from controversial debates, particularly those involving race and identity.
• 😀 The speaker used empirical data to debunk claims about the offensiveness of their event titles, revealing that most people were not significantly offended.
• 😀 The attempt to 'no-platform' the speaker at the University of Bristol was resisted by graduate students and some faculty, leading to the event going ahead despite protests.
• 😀 The university's response to the no-platforming attempt was a win for free speech, as they allowed the debate to occur while acknowledging concerns in a measured way.
• 😀 The media and government scrutiny of universities' handling of free speech plays a key role in shaping their responses to pressure from activist groups.
• 😀 Empirical surveys revealed that concerns about radicalizing individuals through specific event titles were largely unfounded, as both ethnic minorities and white participants showed similar levels of offense.
• 😀 The speaker argues that universities are increasingly aware of reputational damage from being portrayed as anti-free speech or anti-reason, motivating them to defend free speech more effectively.
• 😀 There is a positive feedback loop where universities that defend free speech encourage others to follow suit, gradually shifting the academic culture in favor of open dialogue.

Q & A

What was the main controversy surrounding the event discussed in the script?

The main controversy centered around the title of an event, which some academics and activists believed was offensive to disadvantaged groups. The event was also criticized for supposedly promoting a far-right agenda, with claims that it could radicalize white people against minorities.

How did the speaker respond to the accusations of their event promoting offensive ideas?

The speaker responded by conducting an empirical survey to test the claims. The survey found that the level of offense among participants was low, and there was no significant difference in the reactions of ethnic minorities and white participants.

What was the outcome of the survey mentioned in the script?

The survey found that the level of offense to the event title was low, with a score of 28 out of 100 on a thermometer scale. It also revealed that the event did not increase hostility towards minority groups, with no notable difference between those who read the event description and those who did not.

What ironic example did the speaker use to highlight the absurdity of the claims against their event?

The speaker pointed out the irony that George Ciccarelli, a person who signed the open letter against the event, had previously tweeted about wanting 'white genocide,' which received a much higher offense score of 59 out of 100. This contrast highlighted the disproportionate nature of the accusations against their event.

How did the University of Bristol handle the situation when faced with a no-platforming attempt?

Despite the no-platforming efforts from student activists and some academics, the University of Bristol allowed the event to proceed. They did, however, take precautions by increasing security. The event went ahead with some protesters who left but filmed themselves, gaining significant attention online.

What role did graduate students play in the situation at Bristol University?

Graduate students played a positive role by actively supporting the speaker and wanting the event to go ahead. They were more interested in engaging with the speaker's ideas compared to some other student groups and faculty members who were against the event.

Why were universities hesitant to host such events, according to the speaker?

Universities were hesitant to host controversial events due to concerns about reputational damage, adverse publicity, and potential negative media attention. They were especially wary of being seen as institutions that suppress free speech or are aligned with radical ideologies.

What lesson did the speaker draw from the events at Bristol University?

The speaker learned that public pressure, especially from politicians, media, and students, can influence universities to defend free speech. As more universities stand up for open debate, it can create a positive feedback loop where other institutions are encouraged to follow suit.

How does the speaker believe the system surrounding free speech and academic freedom can be changed?

The speaker believes that systemic change can occur when universities and institutions recognize the importance of free speech and feel external pressure to defend it. Once a critical mass of universities stands up for free speech, others will follow, and the overall environment will shift.

What is the role of media and public perception in shaping universities' stance on free speech?

Media scrutiny and public perception play a significant role in shaping universities' actions. Universities are concerned about how they will be portrayed in the media, especially when facing accusations of stifling free speech. This concern can influence their decisions on whether to allow controversial events to take place.