Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. AG Tanyi's avatar

    This doesn’t exactly guarantee meaningful work, let alone jobs, for most mathematicians…

  2. David Wallace's avatar

    Suppose that an alien spacecraft arrived at Jupiter and we started communicating in radio. The aliens appear friendly but mostly…

  3. Nicholas's avatar

    I’m a mathematician who is terrified and exhilarated. Perhaps an expert in the sublime could explain that. To take one…

  4. Mark's avatar

    I’m a mathematician, but work in an applied field – AI, actually – that has not yet been impacted by…

  5. Brian Leiter's avatar
  6. Mathieu Carpentier's avatar

    I don’t know about antisemitism. I think it is more generally a kind of contempt for European exiles (most of…

  7. Siddharth Muthukrishnan's avatar

    Having attended a few talks by leading mathematicians working on fluid dynamics after the OpenAI solution of the NS problem…

The so-called “University” of Manchester…

Brian Leiter

…has a "safe space policy" which, in non-Orwellian language, is actually a "policy to suppress speech in the name of equality", as its application to the lesbian feminist writer Julie Bindel  plainly demonstrates.  (Thanks to Phil in an earlier thread for pointing this out.)  This is the road some would like American universities to head down, alas.  I wonder if anyone familiar with Manchester and this policy can comment on how frequently it is invoked for the suppression of speech that is clearly not unlawful, even under English law?

UPDATE:  As explained by several commenters, the Student Union (responsible for the "safe space policy") is a legally distinct entity from the University, over which the latter has, it appears, no control.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

15 responses to “The so-called “University” of Manchester…”

  1. Jason Brennan

    In response to earlier things like this, I proposed that we create a two-tier university system, one for grown-ups, and one for the delicate flowers who must be protected from mean and scary ideas.

    http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2015/05/how-to-handle-terrifying-ideas-a-modest-proposal-for-college-reform/

    An excerpt:

    …a better reform would be to institute a two-tier university system. Tier One, also called Real Universities, would follow the traditional college model in which every idea, no matter how repugnant, can be discussed in an intellectual way at any time, and in which everyone would be free to challenge any worldview or ideology others might have. Tier Two, the PseudoUniversities, would feature protective padded walls and pictures of bunnies in every classroom. Students would only be exposed to ideas they already have, and would never have to feel threatened or challenged. No one would ever feel excluded because we would only include people who share all the same world views. When students apply to college, they would then choose whether to attend a Real University or a PseudoUniversity.

    To make this work, we’ll need to have both left-wing and right-wring PseudoUniversities. After all, Christian fundamentalists could feel threatened at a place like the New School, while the average hard-left New School student could feel threatened at a place like Liberty University.

    The problem with the current system is that we’re trying to mix faculty, administrators, and students who wish to attend PseudoUniversities with those who wish to attend Real Universities. It’s kind of like we’re trying to serve everybody pizza when some people just want hamburgers instead. So, let’s solve the problem with product differentiation and market segmentation.

    This way, no one will have a legitimate complaint. If a student at a Real feels threatened by contrary ideas, we can say to him, “Hey, you chose to go to a Real when you could have gone to a Pseudo. You consented to being challenged. If you don’t like it, there’s the door.” If a professor or a speaker at a Pseudo dares to say something that offends her students, we can say, “Hey, you chose to take a job at a Pseudo instead of a Real, or, of course, you could have taken a job at GEICO, where they don’t try to fire people for their political views.”

    Reply
  2. Jonathan

    Since when does not providing a platform equate to "suppressing speech"? The Manchester SU is presumably under no obligation to provide a platform to whoever wants one.

    BL COMMENT: That may be true, are there in fact other for at the University for speakers to appear at? On the other hand, one might hope the official Student Union was prepared to host a wide array of lawful speech.

    Reply
  3. Mavan

    To be fair, the policy is the Student Union's, not the University's.

    BL COMMENT: Also a fair point, but why does the University not require that the official Student Union provide a more tolerant forum?

    Reply
  4. Phil

    I think there *is* an obligation, albeit only an implicit one, on the Students' Union to provide a platform for any and every speaker who's invited by a union-approved body. The 'safe space' provisions imply this obligation by specifying exceptions to it; otherwise the Students' Union could just have said "we don't like the cut of your jib, Ms Bindel" without more. The question remains whether suppression of this (prospective) example of free speech, on these grounds, is legitimate.

    Reply
  5. Daniel A. Kaufman

    With the political Right engaging in a circular firing squad, I suppose it is not surprising that the political Left is doing the same. Bindel is a hardcore, left wing feminist, who suddenly finds herself running afoul of more recent leftist orthodoxies concerning transgendered people. A similar controversy arose over a recent NYT op-ed piece, in which a well-established feminist raised questions about transgendered students being allowed into women's colleges.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/what-makes-a-woman.html?_r=0

    As flawed as classical liberalism may be, as a political orientation, these sorts of purges within the political Left reveal the underlying soundness and wisdom of that quintessentially Enlightenment mode of thinking. Certainly, from my perspective, it is what I always come back to, after I find myself unable to digest the latest Leftist orthodoxy, enforced by some Twitter mob … or overzealous Student Union.

    Reply
  6. Myron

    "[P]ictures of bunnies in every classroom…" – I'm sorry, but that's not possible because some students might suffer from lagophobia (fear of rabbits). *IRONY*

    Reply
  7. Mavan

    To BL: I'm not sure that the University has this power, or that they should have it. In the UK SUs are normally governed independently via a democratic process organised by the students themselves. This is why these kinds of crazy decisions crop up from time to time.

    Reply
  8. Anon grad student

    A comment from the Guardian website yesterday: ""[Universities have] become safe spaces for pusillanimous pissy pants. They should be bubbling hotbeds of dangerous ideas, where rogue philosophers jump out on you when you're least expecting it and wild tigers roam the campus, with death, drop-out and failure rates comparable to special forces selection."

    Reply
  9. Tim

    Just to add to what has already been said: all these stories coming out of the UK (cf. the Warwick thing a few days ago) pertain to the Students' Unions of these universities, not to the universities themselves.

    SUs are separate legal entities. They are democratic membership organisations, they have their own constitutions, and policy is decided through annual general meetings and through referenda. They have their own elected officers.

    Any student society (e.g. the Manchester free speech and secular society at the centre of this controversy) has to comply with SU regulations. And since many appear to have adopted these "safe space" policies, this has led to these periodic fiascos about disinvitations etc.

    It would be a completely different thing if, say, a speaker was invited by a professor/lecturer, or a university department or research centre. This would have nothing to do with the SU. I can't imagine there being situations in which university management would force a disinvitation, although perhaps there have been such cases – I'm not sure.

    Reply
  10. Steven French

    This is in response to Brian – as is stated in its website and in the s'safe space' policy, Manchester SU is 'is a charity and a company limited by guarantee.' It is thus distinct from the University,. Furthermore, it is run by the Student Executive which is elected, so for good or ill, they can reasonably claim that their policies are 'democratically approved'. Although much (but not all) of the funding comes from a block grant from the University, the latter cannot 'require' that they drop their policy – as far as I am aware, there is no formal mechanism for them to do so. They could, conceivably, refuse to hand over the block grant but that would be a massively drastic and dramatic move that would have all kinds of problematic consequences! Bottom line for US folk: UK student unions are typically distinct entities from the associated university. They are, again typically, democratically accountable, however, in that new members of the Executive can, and are, of course, voted in and mechanisms do exist for removing exec members under certain circumstances.

    Reply
  11. Michael B

    So, love it or leave it?

    Reply
  12. David Wallace

    As I understand it, UK student unions, as well as UK universities, are also bound by the Education Act 1986, which has a fairly extensive free speech clause – http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/61/section/43 . Salient part:

    (1) Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment to which this section applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.
    (2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) above includes (in particular) the duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with—
    (a) the beliefs or views of that individual or of any member of that body; or
    (b) the policy or objectives of that body.
    …
    (8) Where a students’ union occupies premises which are not premises of the establishment in connection with which the union is constituted, any reference in this section to the premises of the establishment shall be taken to include a reference to the premises occupied by the students’ union

    Reply
  13. John Robert

    @David Wallace

    The Education Act 1986 obliges universities to guarantee freedom of speech within the law and specify a code of practice including "the conduct required of such persons in connection with any such meeting or activity". It is common to encompass within those procedures prohibitions against various forms of speech: racist, offensive, and so forth. Often, this is justified as a condition of freedom of speech tout court. UK freedom of speech law itself contains many exceptions of this kind.

    e.g. Wadham College Oxford's free speech policy is typical when it writes:

    "Members, students, and employees of the College must conduct themselves so as to ensure
    that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students, and employees of
    the College and for visiting speakers. The freedom protected by this Code of Practice is
    confined to the exercise of freedom of speech within the law. The College believes that a
    culture of free, open and robust discussion can be achieved only if all concerned avoid
    needlessly offensive or provocative action and language."

    Reply
  14. Jonathan Birch

    When it comes to protecting free speech "within the law", UK academics should be aware of a recent change in the law. Section 5 of the the Public Order Act 1986 used to say that "A person is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." In 2013, however, the word "insulting" was removed following a campaign by free speech activists.

    Reply
  15. Phil

    So, as I surmised in comment #4, we're looking at a general presumption that freedom of speech should be upheld, subject to specified exceptions. The question is whether the exception represented by the 'safe space' policy should be there. Or, to be more schematic about it,

    Was the SU justified in withdrawing its invitation to Bindel on the stated grounds?
    If NO, was the withdrawal of the invitation based on a correct reading of the 'safe space' policy?
    If YES, can the 'safe space' policy be justified?

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress