7 Aug 2017 | Academic Freedom, Campaigns, News and features, South Africa
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]David Benatar, a professor of philosophy and head of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town, was one of the proponents behind the invitation to journalist Flemming Rose, the editor responsible for publishing controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, to deliver the 2016 TB Davie Memorial Lecture on academic freedom. The invitation to Rose was rescinded by the university because Rose’s appearance might provoke conflict on campus, pose security risks and might “retard rather than advance academic freedom on campus.” In a guest post, Benatar, writing here in a personal capacity, shares his thoughts on the 2017 lecture. [/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”81181″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]In 2016, the executive of the University of Cape Town in South Africa overrode its academic freedom committee’s invitation to Flemming Rose to deliver the annual TB Davie academic freedom lecture. Mr Rose was disinvited over the protestations of the then members of the academic freedom committee. The irony of preventing a speaker from delivering an academic freedom lecture seems to have been lost on the university’s leadership, with the vice-chancellor, Dr Max Price, publicly defending the decision to disinvite.
Like all campus censors, Dr Price professed his commitment to academic freedom and freedom of expression before justifying his violation of these very principles. His arguments were roundly criticised by some. Other members of the university community supported the decision he and his colleagues had taken, which is part of a broader institutional pathology that, so far as I can tell, is even more pervasive than otherwise similar pathologies at various universities in North America and Europe.
The TB Davie Memorial Lecture was established in 1959 by students at the University of Cape Town. It is named after Thomas Benjamin Davie, vice-chancellor of the university from 1948 until his death in 1955. Dr Davie vigorously defended academic freedom against the apartheid regime’s imposition of racial segregation on higher education in South Africa, a battle that was ultimately unsuccessful.
A preface to printed versions of some past lectures in the series says that the “TB Davie Memorial Lecture keeps before the university a reminder of its ethical duty to defend and to seek to extend academic freedom”. The events of 2016 demonstrate that reminders are insufficient. One can remember the duty without fully understanding it, and one can understand it without having the courage to discharge it. Courage is needed to protect unpopular speech and speakers, not to protect orthodox views and their purveyors.
There have been some developments to this sad saga. First the good news: The South African Institute of Race Relations, upon hearing of the disinvitation of Mr Rose, invited him to South Africa to deliver the annual Hoernle lecture, which he did without incident in both Johannesburg and Cape Town in May 2017. While in South Africa, Mr Rose also spoke at the University of Cape Town, albeit unannounced and in a small class at the invitation of a single professor. There he addressed and had a pleasant and respectful exchange with the students.
The bad news is that the academic freedom committee’s term of office ended soon after Mr Rose was disinvited. The committee’s expression of outrage over the disinvitation was its final act. There is some reason to think that this committee’s stand on the Flemming Rose matter galvanised the dominant regressive sector of the university in a way that influenced how the committee was repopulated for the new term of office.
The result is an academic freedom committee that, on the whole, is significantly tamed. For example, the new members of the committee include somebody who had criticised the earlier invitation to Mr. Rose and someone else who had claimed that “human dignity and civility trumps” freedom of speech. It is thus a committee that is much less likely to highlight or object to the many threats to academic freedom and freedom of expression within the university. It is also a committee that is unlikely to test the university’s commitment to these values by, for example, its choice of speakers for future TB Davie lectures.
It was unsurprising that the new committee has shown no signs of endorsing the six separate nominations it received for Mr Rose to deliver the 2018 lecture. Nor is it surprising that it invited Professor Mahmood Mamdani to deliver the 2017 lecture. (Although Professor Mamdani, now at Columbia University, but at one stage a professor at the University of Cape Town, has had his disagreements with the University of Cape Town, his criticisms are the staples of the university’s self-flagellation and thus very far from a test of freedom of expression.)
I wrote to Professor Mamdani on 2 April 2017 to advise him of the events of 2016 and to ask him to refuse to give this lecture until such time as Mr Rose is permitted to give his. In my email, I acknowledged that he, Professor Mamdani, “might use the opportunity of the TB Davie lecture to criticise the university for having disinvited Mr Rose”, but that it would be far more effective if he refused to give the lecture. I said that until “Mr Rose’s disinvitation is reversed, the TB Davie lecture will be a farce”.
About a dozen other members of the university community, mainly academic staff, subsequently wrote to him to endorse my request. To the best of my knowledge, none of us have received a response, and the lecture is scheduled to take place on 22 August. Until Professor Mamdani gives his lecture, we cannot be sure what he will say. However, his failure either to withdraw from the lecture or to reassure those who had written to him that he would be taking a stand against the disinvitation of Mr Rose does not augur well.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ show_filter=”yes” element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1502096677412-aee0a1d7-4cdb-4″ taxonomies=”4524, 8562″ filter_source=”category”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
6 Jun 2017 | Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Turkey, Turkey Statements
Nuriye Gulmen, a professor of literature, and Semih Ozakca, a primary school teacher, were both fired following the issuing of emergency decree 675 by Erdogan’s government.
In the wake of the July 2016 coup attempt in Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan dismissed over 8,000 academics from state institutions following Emergency Decree 675. Literature professor Nuriye Gulmen and primary school teacher Semih Ozakca were two such individuals affected by the purge. Both Gulmen and Ozakca were dismissed and have been detained by Turkish authorities over 30 times, most recently on 22 May, for their demands to be reinstated to their positions. They are now facing terror charges simply for asking for their job back.
We urgently need your help to call for the release of Nuriye Gulmen and Semih Ozakca and express your solidarity with their cause.
Gulmen and Ozakca began a hunger strike, which is currently on its 90th day, to protest the crackdown on academic freedom. Consuming little more than salt water, a single B vitamin, and a sugar solution, Ozakca has lost over 37 pounds and Gulmen has experienced heartburn, difficulty moving, and trouble concentrating. Both academics suffer from muscle atrophy and are now wheelchair bound.
Read more about Gulmen and Ozakca’s protest and the current crackdown on freedom of expression in Turkey
Index on Censorship stands in solidarity with Gulmen and Ozakca and pledges its full support for their right to protest. We ask you to do the same: demanding an end to the dismissal of academics and the immediate release of Nuriye Gulmen and Semih Ozakca. While their plight has gained international attention, both strikers have received little recognition from their own government. As such, we ask you to speak out on Ozakca and Gulmen’s behalf in the form of a brief video expressing solidarity with their strike and requesting academic freedom for Turkey.
Take Action
— Post a solidarity message on social media.
— Share the story of Nuriye Gulmen and Semih Ozakca with your network.
— Tweet: [socialpug_tweet tweet=”I stand with @nuriyegulmen, @semihozakca and #academicfreedom #DontletNuriyeAndSemihDie #Turkey” remove_url=”yes” remove_username=”yes”]
25 Apr 2017 | Academic Freedom, Hungary, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
As a new law passed by Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán’s government threatens the existence of Central European University in Budapest, 70,000 people marched in protest in the capital to save it as part of the #IStandWithCEU campaign.
Among those offering supportto protect the academic freedom of one of central Europe’s most prominent graduate universities, either by writing letters or demonstrating, include more than 20 Nobel Laureates including Mario Vargas Llosa, hundreds of academics worldwide, the European Commission, the UN, the governments of France and Germany, 11 US Senators, Noam Chomsky and Kofi Annan.
Whilst the amendment, which will effectively force CEU to shut, has been signed into statute by Hungarian president Janos Ader, the university hopes to challenge the law in the Hungary’s Constitutional Court.
In a video released on 20 April, Michael Ignatieff, president and rector of CEU, said: “Three weeks ago this university was attacked by a government who tabled legislation that would effectively shut us down. We fought back and the reception around the world has been just magnificent.”
He added: “Academic freedom is one of the values we just can’t compromise.”
Orsolya Lehotai, a masters student at CEU and one of the organisers of the street protest movement Freedom for Education, told Index that initially the small group of students had hoped to “mimic democratic society” and stop the law passing in its original form.
“So far in the seven years of the Orbán government, whenever there was big opposition to something, people have taken to the streets and this has actually changed legislation, so we decided it would show a little power if we were to have people in the streets about this,” Lehotai said. “Back then [at the first protest] we were unsure when the parliamentary debate was to happen but we had had news that it was to happen on a fast-track, which to us was outrageous.”
Despite the protests and international criticism, the Hungarian government said that the law is designed to correct “irregularities” in the way some foreign institutions run campuses. Government officials maintain that the legislation is not politically motivated.
Áron Tábor is a Fulbright scholar and another CEU student who has taken to the streets. He spoke to Index about the absurdity of the Hungarian government’s stance: “This is one university, where the language is instruction is English and the programs run according to the American system.The government says that CEU is a ‘phantom university’, or even a ‘mailbox university’, which doesn’t do any real teaching, but only issues American degrees from a distance. This is a ridiculous claim.”
Gergő Brückner, a journalist at Index.hu described the political paranoia that lies behind the new laws: “One important thing to know is that Fidesz doesn’t like anything that is not part of their own Fidesz system. You can be a famous filmmaker, a university researcher or an Olympic medal winner but you must, for them, be the part of the national circle of Fidesz.”
“If you are an independent and well-funded American university – then you are not controlled, and you can easily be portrayed as a kind of enemy,” he added.
Since its establishment in 1991, CEU has made no secret of its commitment to freedom of expression. It was founded by a group of intellectuals including George Soros, who has been much criticised by Orbán.
The university was designed to reinforce democratic ideals in an area of the world just emerging from communist control. This ethos continues: in February the annual president’s lecture at CEU was given by the University of Oxford academic Timothy Garton Ash who spoke on the topic of “Free Speech and the Defense of an Open Society”.
When the law comes into force, requirements for foreign higher education institutions to have a campus in their home country mean that it will be impossible for CEU to continue operating.
Similarly, requiring a bilateral agreement between the government of the country involved, and the Hungarian government is a huge obstacle, as in CEU’s case this would be the USA but the US federal government has made it clear that it is not within their competence to negotiate this.
More generally, the ability of the Hungarian government to block any agreement raises worrying possibilities, too. Professor Jan Kubik told Index: “A democratic government has no business in the area of education, particularly higher education, except for providing funds for it. When a government tries to play an arbiter, dictating who does and who does not have the right to teach that is a sure sign of authoritarian tendency.”
Kubik, director of University College London’s School of Slavonic and Eastern European Studies, along with over a thousand other international academics, has strongly criticised the new legislation, and his department is holding a rally in London on April 26.
He has also signed an open letter published in the Financial Times.
He said: “Any governmental attempt to close down a university is always very troubling. An attack on a university in a country that has already been travelling on a path towards de-democratisation for a while is alarming.
“Universities are like canaries of freedom and independence of the public sphere. Their death or weakening signals trouble for this sphere, a sphere that is indispensable for democracy.”
With the international condemnation of the Lex CEU amendment and a likely protracted legal battle ahead, what Kubik called “a magnificent institution of higher learning, as devoted to the freedom of intellectual inquiry and high ethical standards as any of the best universities in the world” is not expected to shut its doors this year.
Meanwhile, those fighting for fundamental freedoms in Hungary will continue to challenge Orbán. European Commission vice president Frans Timmermans said, CEU has been a “pearl in the crown” of central Europe that he would “continue to fight for”, and for as long as global opinion remains so loudly behind CEU, Orbán will find it an institution difficult to silence. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1493126838618-e2c5cf5d-d00a-0″ taxonomies=”2942″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
17 Mar 2017 | Academic Freedom, Digital Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Many universities pay lip service to freedom of speech on campus, but actions often tell a different story. In an effort to limit insult and offence, universities also limit freedom of expression. Spiked’s survey of British universities examines the policies and actions of faculty and students and ranks them using a traffic-light-themed system.
A ranking of “red” means that the university in question has banned and actively censored ideas on campus, “amber” signifies that it as chilled free speech through intervention and “green” indicates that the university has a hands-off approach to free speech. Over the last three years, the Spiked’s analysis has seen the steady decline of free speech on campus.
Here are just three examples from the last few weeks.
Lincoln University Conservative Society censored for criticising state of free speech on campus
The Lincoln University Conservative Society has been suspended from using social media by the Lincoln Student Union after publishing tweets that highlighted the university’s lack of free speech.
“Due to SU orders this Twitter account will no longer be active. We hope to return on 1st May. Sorry for any inconvenience,” the Conservative Society tweeted after a students’ union disciplinary hearing found that two tweets by the society brought the university into “disrepute.”
One tweet complained about a questionnaire those who wish to run in student union elections are required to submit. The other included a screenshot of a Spiked article which gave Lincoln the worst possible Free Speech University Ranking. According to Spiked, the university administration has a better ranking and therefore less restrictive free speech policies than the students’ union. The union’s policies allow them to restrict what they deem to be offensive, racist or fascist speech, and ban speakers who may draw controversy as part of their Safe Campus policy.
This is not the first time the students’ union has been criticised for violating students’ right to free speech. In 2016 it has banned use of the social media app Yik Yak from campus. The app, which allows students to post anonymous comments based on location, was made unavailable on the university’s wifi networks because it “caused much distress to a number of students”.
After the decision to suspend the Conservative Society’s Twitter account, , the union published a statement expressing their support and dedication to free speech on campus.
“Freedom of speech is a fundamental value of the Students’ Union,” it said. “The SU is built on a foundation where students can express opinions and ideas freely within the law.”
A spokesperson for the Conservative Society told The Lincolnite that the decisions were “misguided and disproportionate”.
Karl McCartney, MP for Lincoln, called the shutdown “intolerant,” “totalitarian,” and like “something out of the Soviet Union or North Korea”.
Tommy Robinson unwelcome at Oxford Brookes University
Ex-English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson was due to speak at Oxford Brookes University in February. Following an outcry from members of the student body, the university’s student union refused approval of the event, disallowing the right-wing activist to speak on campus.
Robinson, who is also at the helm of the anti-Islamist group Pegida UK, had been invited to speak at the university by an anti-extremism student group. The opposition to Robinson’s appearance on campus was strong enough that the police warned it posed a “public disorder” risk.
Accusations of Robinson supporting fascism and white supremacy spread throughout the university campus. Aspiring protesters launched a petition claiming that “regardless of his official departure from the EDL in 2013, Robinson has built his career on Islamophobic, racist speech and violence”.
The liberal student organisation that originally invited Robinson to speak did so in an effort to combat extremism through open dialogue.
Oxford Brookes University places no significant restrictions on free speech, but its students’ union employs a No Platform policy for those it deems to be fascist or racist, as well as a de facto ban on sexist expression.
Spiked gives Oxford Brookes an overall rating of amber, a combination of a green rating for the university and a red rating for the students’ union.
Cardiff Metropolitan University accused of policing speech in the name of equality
Cardiff Metropolitan University is attempting to “promote an atmosphere in which all students and staff feel valued”. In doing so, the university has created a Code of Practice on using Inclusive Language that enforces acceptable terminology throughout its academic programmes and campus.
The code offers “a few suggestions” – a list of 34 words and phrases to avoid and what to replace them with. If “this Code is not adhered to” disciplinary procedures can be taken against both staff and students.
Some of these suggestions include avoiding assumptions and generalisations based on stereotypes or norms from one’s own cultural background, using gender-neutral language, abstaining from using terms which might be regarded as patronising or pitying and using language which embraces cultural diversity.
On its “gender-neutral” terms checklist, the university recommends replacing the expression “right-hand man” with “chief assistant,” using “fairness, good humour, or sense of fair play” in place of “sportsmanship,” saying “artificial, manufactured, or synthetic” instead of “manmade” and calling adult females “women” instead of “girls”.
The code also states: “These days the terms ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ seem laden with the values of a previous time. Referring to ‘same-sex’ and ‘other-sex’ relationships is a good option.”
Spiked has given Cardiff Metropolitan University an amber rating as it places restrictions on “offensive comments or gestures” and “jokes,” while also urging students to police their speech and avoid non-inclusive words. The students’ union has a rating of red due to its no platform policy, which bans racists, sexists and homophobes from the campus.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1489746234747-41452242-9ad6-6″ taxonomies=”8843″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
