Free speech in Academia

The following is taken from an article on Guardian Unlimited:

"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?

An opening about Oxford

Higher education has become a big part of my life. I have a degree and now work in part of the HE sector. I created this blog because of that. The first thing I want to comment on is something that happened in the news recently which relates to the University of Oxford.

Dr. John Hood, who is the vice-chancellor at the university, submitted plans to change the council structure so that there would be more lay-members and they would then have more of a control over matters such as finances. This caused outrage amongst some members as it would be a massive change in the ancient university's governance. There was a long debate and it resulted in a humiliating defeat for Dr. Hood when it went to a vote. This story was reported in such places as the BBC news website and the Guardian Unlimited website.

I then noticed a post about this on the Mortar Board, which is an education blog on the Guardian Unlimited site. The paragraphs which provoked my initial comment were the first two:

"Where now for Oxford? Dons today decisively rejected plans by the vice-chancellor John Hood to modernise the running of the ancient university.

By a clear majority they expressed dislike of his proposal for a ruling council with a majority of outsiders from business, to bring Oxford into line with every other university in the UK except Cambridge."

and the last one:

"We must hope for an outbreak of Christmas goodwill in the university - after all there is far too much important scholarly work to be done to get distracted by who sits on what committee."

I must admit that my initial response was a little reactionary, but it also got the basis of my point across. However, people disagreed with what I posted. I wasn't surprised - you can't make everyone agree with you. Some of the points did seem overly opinionated and just plain wrong though. One person posted:

"What may - or may not,'work' for lesser Universities is not good enough for the very best.

Our younger son, educated at the local state comprehensive and the local sixth form college, is a graduate of Oxford and we are absolutely delighted with the way the University is, and has been for a long time."

Hmmm - 'the best'? I thought to myself, 'let's examine that statement'. The University of Oxford has been regarded as one of the top universities for a while now, but how good is it? The Times does the 'Good University Guide' every year and publishes rankings based on a series of criteria. Oxford appears at the top of the 2007 table, but then I looked at the figures more closely. According to the table, it doesn't have the highest average spend on facilities, the highest completion rate, the highest ranking for entry requirements, isn't the best for career prospects, doesn't have the best student:staff ratio and has no mark for student satisfaction. As it boycotted the National Student Survey that's another way we can't judge satisfaction.

Yes, it might have the highest number of degrees classed as 1st or 2:1, but academic achievement isn't the only thing that is considered by employers now. 'Soft' skills such as interpersonal skills and things that make you a well-rounded person are much more important (the career prospects figure is an indicator of this). In reality, while it might be the best in terms of degree results, I don't think it's the best overall. This response didn't seem to relate to the article anyway. It just seemed to be posted because I was disagreeing with something Oxford did.

Getting back to the point of the article, someone posted:

"Congratulations to Oxford academics for resisting the tendency to "modernise". i.e. change a university from a self governing community of academics (well sort of!) into a business"

I'm sorry - this is just a ridiculous statement. Competition is getting much stronger nowadays (especially post-1992). Therefore it's important that a universities markets itself properly and has a strong grip on it's finances. It's important to get the funding required to provide high quality facilities to attract the students as well as providing good teaching quality. It's important that a university has a business aspect to it so that it can make the correct investments and make best use of it's funding. You have to accept at least some modernisations to stay with or keep ahead of the competition. It is standard practice to have a council structure like Dr. Hood was proposing and that standard has (mostly) worked for a number of years. Why do they assume it will fail at Oxford?

I'd like to hear people's opinions on this.