Academic freedom for students and teachers has long underpinned the global reputation of British universities. The ability to research controversial topics, dissent from the status quo, and contest popular ideas has enabled British Universities to gain and maintain their status as global leaders. Yet, the current state of British academia is dire.
Britain has declined from being among the top global states for academic freedom a mere decade ago to a dismal status at 64th out of 179 states. The developing states of the world such as Malawi and Papua New Guinea are now more successful at upholding academic freedom than Britain. So what has caused such a stark decline? The increased popularity of radical progressivism in universities is certainly a key factor.
Professor Eric Kaufmann uses the term wokeism to describe radical progressivism. He describes it as an emergent ideology which has gained recent popularity among academics, justifying speech suppression in the name of ensuring “emotional harm protection for totemic identity groups”. The focus is on historically marginalised groups such as Ethnic Minorities and LGBTQ+ individuals with any potentially offensive speech deemed as unacceptable.
Progressives dispute this framing, claiming that being woke is merely being awakened to the damage of the historical marginalisation and exclusion of minority groups and the willingness to take measures to prevent incendiary speech with no merit or validity. Thereby, Universities simply have a responsibility to address historical injustices and prevent speech designed to do no more than stir up hatred and speech restrictions are deemed as mere protections. Yet, the core issue is the subjectivity of what is deemed as hateful or harmful. Speech suppression in Universities has set us down a slippery slope and we are dangerously close toward the bottom of the cliff.
The case of Connie Shaw at the University of Leeds demonstrates the issue clearly. After raising concerns about students potentially self-censoring due to a transgender woman lecturing her, she faced punitive measures from her university, with exclusion as the potential cost if found guilty. The naked irony was that her concerns were proven by the university’s response which excoriated her remarks as amounting to harassment and claimed that she had used a slur when describing the lecturer as a ‘trans-identified male’. While she was fortunate enough to avoid being excluded, the process shows how controversial views on campus are often met with disciplinary action instead of challenge or rational debate.
The cancellation was justified by the University as ensuring the protection of diverse communities, namely the transgender staff member in this case. Yet, there was a focus on the potential harm of the language without adequate explanation of the issue with the factual description of a biologically male staff member who identified as transgender as precisely that. No rational critique was presented by the University. No argument. No claim that Shaw had made incorrect or incoherent claims but simply the view that since her description could be perceived as offensive, its utterance was intolerable. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Sadly, it is not only students who have been met with hostility when expressing provocative or contested views. The incident with Lecturer Neil Thin at the University of Edinburgh was a key demonstration of the damaging treatment of academics by University administrators. Demands for disciplinary action against him arose from an anti-racist group of black students termed ‘BlackED’ who accused Thin of racism due to his comments describing a Resisting Whiteness event which had spaces reserved where only People of Colour were permitted as “segregation”. While Thin was cleared of wrongdoing, he described receiving a lack of support from the University which influenced his decision to step back from lecturing due to a potentially hostile climate.
The kowtowing of Edinburgh University to student activists was a craven move which prompted the creation of Edinburgh Academics for Academic Freedom (EdAFAF) by scholars with concerns over the developing climate of fear among dissenting academics. But I wonder why on earth academics should feel the need to create a society to uphold the values that British Universities were designed to protect? And it is not only Edinburgh academics afflicted by the increasingly hostile emergent climate.
This effect was observed in a Policy Exchange poll, finding that of 1 in 2 Conservative-leaning academics in Britain self-censor. A harrowing indictment of the climate of fear that has been enabled and downright encouraged by University administrators who abstain from providing support to academics when facing baseless accusations and often punish controversial opinions with disciplinary measures. But who could blame the academics for avoiding certain topics? Why bother expressing any mildly hostile view if simply describing the segregation of students using precise language could lead to complete ostracisation? Self-censorship becomes the rational response. Time and time again, British Universities claiming to seek inclusion perpetuate exclusionist attitudes that have no place in a liberal democracy.
The prognosis is bleak. The culture of intimidation and fear is becoming entrenched among academics and students alike who face no protection when the mob arrives.
Yet, the repressive measures of Universities against students can still be prevented. But only if the British and Scottish governments are willing to take gutsy measures. Legal reforms with punitive consequences for Universities who fail to uphold free speech such as fines or withholding funding could be a first step toward the restoration of the freer academic climates of the past in Britain.
British Universities have been consistently guilty of undermining the standards faculty are expected to uphold in any liberal society. The descent toward an education system where intellectual diversity is a mere fantasy continues. Academic freedom disappears not merely through formal preventative measures but when the risks of speaking freely are simply too great to bear. This is the trajectory which British universities must confront.