Read on Twitter
My preferred response to bad takes is not to engage with them, but having read the Gov't proposed 'academic freedom/free speech' legislation and the politics of knowledge being, you know, actual field of research, I do feel the need to put a few things in a
:
:
'Academic freedom' is a compound of what Von Humboldt designated as 'Lehrfreiheit' and 'Lernfreiheit', that is, the freedom to learn and to teach. It does not, in any way, mean 'freedom to occupy a[ny given] platform'. 1/
Historically, 'academic freedom' (and the corresponding principle of university autonomy were designed to prevent the government (or other kinds of political power) interfering with teaching and learning, not to enable them to intervene in what should be taught. 2/
on a Berlinian framing, academic freedom is a negative freedom; that is, the freedom to learn and to teach free of fear of persecution. it is *not* a positive freedom, that is, freedom to use an academic platform to profess whatever the f*** the speaker wants. 3/
the limitations of what can be said [in public] are thus subject to wider legal regulations concerning, yes, freedom of speech, but also things like hate speech, discriminatory or defamatory language, etc. Academic freedom does *not* automatically follow from these. 4/
Problems of 'no-platforming', 'culture of fear' etc. etc. are thus problems of democratic decision-making, not problems of freedom of speech. In other words, they concern majority (or, in some cases, minority) opposition to platforming certain views; not their 'persecution'. 5/
Most public platforms widely regulate acceptable speech - obvious examples include swearing, (again) hate speech, explicit sexual references, etc. More insidious ones include policing regional or foreign accents, or excluding those who do not speak in an extended code. 6/
Many of these, of course, are problematic. But they are subject to renegotiation, in part - ideally - by members of the relevant community. For instance, a TV channel can decide to 'censor' explicit language. So, equally, a student union can decide not to platform a eugenicist 7/
So when the government intervenes in the latter, it is not protecting freedom of speech; it is redefining the boundaries of the relevant political community. Rather than oriented towards 'liberties', this is a strategy that's interventionist AF. 8/
There's much more to add, but I need to go back to my article that describes how some people (hint: particularly women and ethnic minorities) *do* get sidelined at universities. You know, actual research. /end
