"More than 60 UK academics from Academics for Academic Freedom are calling for laws to be extended to ensure that academics are free to "question and test received wisdom, and to put forward unpopular opinions"."
If you just look at this quote (which is the second paragraph in the Guardian Unlimited article), it seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Free speech is a good thing - the majority of the world accepts that. However, when you look at the website of Academics For Academic Freedom, a different picture is painted.
There are two points the academics are wanting to be accepted. The first one is:
"...that academics, both inside and outside the classroom, have unrestricted liberty to question and test received wisdom and to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions, whether or not these are deemed offensive,..."
The important part of that statement is "whether or not these are deemed offensive". Yes, we live in a society where political correctness has gone mad, but that bit, if accepted, would mean academics are free to use language that is associated with things such as anti-semitism. Not only would that affect the reputation of the academic, but it would also harm the institution and offend a number of people. That might be an extreme example, but it would be excusable if the AFAF proposal was successful.
The second point from the website is:
"that academic institutions have no right to curb the exercise of this freedom by members of their staff, or to use it as grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal."
Again, although it's an extreme example, this could allow things such as anti-semitism and people would escape punishment, regardless of any offense the comments may cause. This cannot be accepted at all.
The above should not be interpreted as me thinking there should be a total restriction on what academics say. That would be ridiculous. Without the ability to question long-held beliefs, we would never make progress. It was once believed that the sun revolved around the earth, but that was challenged, then beliefs were changed when it was discovered the earth wasn't at the centre of the solar system. It is one of the key factors of science and many other disciplines to challenge beliefs and experiment.
The current system that's in place may be bureaucratic, but it allows people with the necessary expertise to challenge beliefs in their particular field and it also punishes those who make incredibly offensive remarks.
Do you agree?
2 comments:
I agree that some speech can impact the reputation of the speaker. however it is the response to that speech that reflects on the institution. It is a tough situation though. Do we force people to decide between speaking out what their deeply held beliefs are and teaching at an institution? The question I ask myself is "would I support the rule if it were applied to people I agree with?" In other words is it less reasonable for Iran to ban people from saying there was a Holocost that it is for the west to ban people from saying there was one? If your only answer is "yes because our view of truth is right and theirs is wrong" you deny reasonable freedom. If you say "yes because their idea offends us and we don't care if our idea offends them" are you really being fair and honest?
The real answer to lies and hate speech is facts, truth and correcton and not banning all talk of things we fine offensive. Both sides must be allowed to speak or freedom is denied.
I support the AFAF declaration because, for me, it is not about fighting the old disputes, it is about development of science in the next 10-20 years. I support the declaration because I expect that development of certain scientific disciplines (first of all, in the area of "life sciences") will result in the emergence of theories and conjectures which might happen to be very uncomfortable and outright offensive to a considerable number of people.
We live in a unique period in the history of humankind when 99.9% of population have no vaguest idea about the workings of 99% of everyday technology around them. Worse, 99% of the remaining 0.1%, the so-called experts, understand nothing at all outside of their immediate (and increasingly narrow) area of expertise. In these circumstances, do we have a system of checks and balances which ensures the consistency and safety of our technology? Without the culture of openness, criticism, complete freedom of questioning established practices, our civilisation will find itself on its way to serial Chernobyls.
Science and technology have to be open to criticism - but scientists also need the right to use frank and open language when they talk to luddites, ignorants and snake oil merchants.
Post a Comment