Great post. Hits the spot!! If the rigourous contest of ideas (including those that we don't agree with) can't happen in a university setting, then future of tertiary education is a dire state and this has implications for how our democracy operates. In part, the Salient response reflects that our secondary schools have an overwhelming focus on being inclusive, affirming and open to diversity and while I totally endorse this ethos, academic standards have declined. This has not prepared our young people well for debating difficult ideas. NCEA hasn't helped. We now have the greatest number of qualified young people in our history yet a substantial proportion are not confident to think independently and critically about the world. They are qualified but not educated.
Hi Mark. Thanks for the comments! It's odd how the desire to be inclusive flips into the exact opposite! But I've seen this infect the university at all levels. Some students retain critical minds – and I often heard them complain about the oppressive atmosphere. But we are cheating them of an education – and of some of their best years – by lowering standards and denying them opportunities to argue vigorously with one another. Cheers, Grant
I taught part-time in a law faculty for over 20 years, an evening job associated with my then day job. The university was a very different (in a good way) environment then. It saddens me beyond measure to see institutions that were once bastions of the assurance of a decent tertiary education in an atmosphere of real free speech and fair play succumbing to the current sicknesses of ignorance and prejudice.
Hi Ruaridh. The last time I visited a law faculty, the academic staff made it clear enough that they felt the atmosphere was oppressive, coming from above and below. Sadly, it seemed to centre on the Treaty – a topic on which most of them would, I guess, have well-informed views already. (And you can read my own views on it in earlier posts.) Cheers.
Your response matches my worst fears. And comments I’ve recently seen suggest that the infection has spread into our higher courts. David Harvey makes some oblique references to this in the most recent issue of The Listener. See further:
Many years ago, I went to my girlfriend's elderly parent's house for dinner. During the meal, the subject of politics came up in the conversation between her father and me. Her mother quickly interjected, saying something like, "Fred [not his real name] I have told you before, don't speak about politics; you know it upsets you." That was the end of the conversation, the thought police had imposed their mind control, and the father looked subjugated and in no mind to contest his wife's edict. I felt sad for him for not being able to express his opinion, and I thought she was a bully. I certainly viewed my girlfriend in a different light.
Hi John. That puts a new perspective on alma mater! I grew up in a home where everyone argued loudly about politics, religion, sex, or anything else. It was impossible to shut anyone up, so I instinctively reject marginalisation, silencing and suppression – no matter how outrageous an idea might be. Cheers, Grant
Thanks, Grant for your thoughtful essay. It takes my mind back more than 50 years to when I was teaching Chemical Engineering at the University of Melbourne and was a representative of the Engineering Faculty on the University Assembly. Eysenck and Jensen, who contended that the coloured races were intellectually inferior to white races, were invited to the University by someone Department I can no longer recall, causing furore in the University Community generally and in the Assembly in particular. Those who supported the visit on the grounds of free discourse were immediately vilified and subjected to ad hominem attacks. I found the theory of Eysenck and Jensen abhorrent but ultimately came down on the side of letting them visit the University. The Professorial Board succumbed to the pressure and refused to allow the visit. (Sound familiar?).
I have been taken by the recent video clip used by BBC News (TV) showing Elon Musk saying, "Free speech is about letting someone you don't like say things you don't like!" with which I have difficulty disagreeing. But I am aware of the enormous caveat about responsibility. Perhaps this needs to be defined before pursuing a debate on whether someone ought not to be allowed to speak on campus.
Just the story in the intro is amazing, but the author acknowledges that, at that time, Eysenck was convincing and hard to refute. IQ isn't in my field of expertise (though I did study psych) but, in the end, Eysenck was refuted by the evidence, and through the weakness of the construct of IQ per se. Again, it was better to have him make his case openly, and then rigorously test it. That's the responsible thing to do, even though it causes discomfort. At my former campus, we had an economist who dropped a racist bombshell once, and so colleagues examined his work and found it wanting. But the atmosphere in the university has become more fearful and closed of late. I'd only advise banning a controversial speaker from campus if they cause offence and really have nothing of scientific or scholarly significance to say and show no interest in counter-arguments. Eysenck wasn't in that category. Neither really was Don Brash, who had planned to speak in his past capacity as a leader of a political party – quite a legitimate topic. Cheers, Grant
Getting them to toe the present goverment's line would be politicising them even more that they are at present. Remember there were complaints when the last govt appeared to be doing that to journalists.
Henry Broadbent says "If something harmful or hateful is said, it cant be unsaid, ever." The same applies to how Posie Parker and her audience was treated by a violent mob of haters in Albert park last year. We have seen plenty of violent footage of those women being attacked by a mob of queers while the police looked the other way, and we cant unsee or forget that footage, and the people responsible for it. Why arent those people being charged with a hate crime? while people with white paint are being charged and fined ? Are the police really that corrupt ?
Hi Mark. Yes, I can't unsee those things too. But I'm unable to answer your questions. You may recall that one young man was charged with assault on an elderly woman. While I support the right to protest, on that occasion the violence of the protestors was way out of proportion with the 'threat' posed by one speaker. I'm currently writing a piece that tries to understand the history of this kind of excess. Cheers. GD
If I may share some thoughts, I hope related enough, continuing the discussion.
It is challenging times for societies and universities around the world. Events in the USA and UK are very much concerning, and they are happening, I would argue, due to overtollerance of modern liberal states towards free speech, combined with influence information operations by hostile states. Playing on sentiments and using half-truth mixed with lies, it is easy to introduce radical narratives, spread them and make repetitive. It becomes hard to fight gin let out of the bottles. As Russian infromarional strategy is - the aim is not to convince people in their lies per se, but rather to inflate confusion and doubt of whether there is truth and righteousness after all, accept new hostile thoughts and divide societies. Students have a powerful potential going as far as overthrowing governments. Once convinced in bad ideas (say, nazism) it becomes unimaginably costly to convince people in being wrong.
Immideately after reading your article, came across this Intelligence warning from UK:
Taking Elon Musk as an example, I think it's not wholly accurate to characterize his policy at X as all-permissiveness - there are multiple complains and investigations arguing that he oppresses tool views differwnt from, while promotes often baseless claims and pure disinformation, using same principles of free speech multiplied by personal popularity or coding algorithms (even when unintentionally, out of arrogance, etc.). This is research on him in two parts:
Hi Cyril. Thanks, and point taken regarding Elon... His case is more complicated than I've suggested. The Telegraph article is really interesting. I've been targetted by the Chinese myself before (though not for anything secret!). Cheers. PS: I must get that book back to you!
I’m with you all the way on this issue, Grant.
Great post. Hits the spot!! If the rigourous contest of ideas (including those that we don't agree with) can't happen in a university setting, then future of tertiary education is a dire state and this has implications for how our democracy operates. In part, the Salient response reflects that our secondary schools have an overwhelming focus on being inclusive, affirming and open to diversity and while I totally endorse this ethos, academic standards have declined. This has not prepared our young people well for debating difficult ideas. NCEA hasn't helped. We now have the greatest number of qualified young people in our history yet a substantial proportion are not confident to think independently and critically about the world. They are qualified but not educated.
Hi Mark. Thanks for the comments! It's odd how the desire to be inclusive flips into the exact opposite! But I've seen this infect the university at all levels. Some students retain critical minds – and I often heard them complain about the oppressive atmosphere. But we are cheating them of an education – and of some of their best years – by lowering standards and denying them opportunities to argue vigorously with one another. Cheers, Grant
I taught part-time in a law faculty for over 20 years, an evening job associated with my then day job. The university was a very different (in a good way) environment then. It saddens me beyond measure to see institutions that were once bastions of the assurance of a decent tertiary education in an atmosphere of real free speech and fair play succumbing to the current sicknesses of ignorance and prejudice.
Hi Ruaridh. The last time I visited a law faculty, the academic staff made it clear enough that they felt the atmosphere was oppressive, coming from above and below. Sadly, it seemed to centre on the Treaty – a topic on which most of them would, I guess, have well-informed views already. (And you can read my own views on it in earlier posts.) Cheers.
Hi Grant ,
Your response matches my worst fears. And comments I’ve recently seen suggest that the infection has spread into our higher courts. David Harvey makes some oblique references to this in the most recent issue of The Listener. See further:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new-zealands-highest-court-could-be-facing-a-turning-point-roger-partridge/WFTCWD7CH5E5NFZPCZ3ZWGIK5Q/
Many years ago, I went to my girlfriend's elderly parent's house for dinner. During the meal, the subject of politics came up in the conversation between her father and me. Her mother quickly interjected, saying something like, "Fred [not his real name] I have told you before, don't speak about politics; you know it upsets you." That was the end of the conversation, the thought police had imposed their mind control, and the father looked subjugated and in no mind to contest his wife's edict. I felt sad for him for not being able to express his opinion, and I thought she was a bully. I certainly viewed my girlfriend in a different light.
Hi John. That puts a new perspective on alma mater! I grew up in a home where everyone argued loudly about politics, religion, sex, or anything else. It was impossible to shut anyone up, so I instinctively reject marginalisation, silencing and suppression – no matter how outrageous an idea might be. Cheers, Grant
Thanks, Grant for your thoughtful essay. It takes my mind back more than 50 years to when I was teaching Chemical Engineering at the University of Melbourne and was a representative of the Engineering Faculty on the University Assembly. Eysenck and Jensen, who contended that the coloured races were intellectually inferior to white races, were invited to the University by someone Department I can no longer recall, causing furore in the University Community generally and in the Assembly in particular. Those who supported the visit on the grounds of free discourse were immediately vilified and subjected to ad hominem attacks. I found the theory of Eysenck and Jensen abhorrent but ultimately came down on the side of letting them visit the University. The Professorial Board succumbed to the pressure and refused to allow the visit. (Sound familiar?).
I have been taken by the recent video clip used by BBC News (TV) showing Elon Musk saying, "Free speech is about letting someone you don't like say things you don't like!" with which I have difficulty disagreeing. But I am aware of the enormous caveat about responsibility. Perhaps this needs to be defined before pursuing a debate on whether someone ought not to be allowed to speak on campus.
Thanks for that story, Gary! It made me drop everything and I found this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886916303099
Just the story in the intro is amazing, but the author acknowledges that, at that time, Eysenck was convincing and hard to refute. IQ isn't in my field of expertise (though I did study psych) but, in the end, Eysenck was refuted by the evidence, and through the weakness of the construct of IQ per se. Again, it was better to have him make his case openly, and then rigorously test it. That's the responsible thing to do, even though it causes discomfort. At my former campus, we had an economist who dropped a racist bombshell once, and so colleagues examined his work and found it wanting. But the atmosphere in the university has become more fearful and closed of late. I'd only advise banning a controversial speaker from campus if they cause offence and really have nothing of scientific or scholarly significance to say and show no interest in counter-arguments. Eysenck wasn't in that category. Neither really was Don Brash, who had planned to speak in his past capacity as a leader of a political party – quite a legitimate topic. Cheers, Grant
cut their funding or fund them with attached conditions- it's the only way to get the leftist uni execs to toe the line
Getting them to toe the present goverment's line would be politicising them even more that they are at present. Remember there were complaints when the last govt appeared to be doing that to journalists.
Balanced sane opinion. Thank you.
Thanks for the comment, Alasdair. Much appreciated. GD
Henry Broadbent says "If something harmful or hateful is said, it cant be unsaid, ever." The same applies to how Posie Parker and her audience was treated by a violent mob of haters in Albert park last year. We have seen plenty of violent footage of those women being attacked by a mob of queers while the police looked the other way, and we cant unsee or forget that footage, and the people responsible for it. Why arent those people being charged with a hate crime? while people with white paint are being charged and fined ? Are the police really that corrupt ?
Hi Mark. Yes, I can't unsee those things too. But I'm unable to answer your questions. You may recall that one young man was charged with assault on an elderly woman. While I support the right to protest, on that occasion the violence of the protestors was way out of proportion with the 'threat' posed by one speaker. I'm currently writing a piece that tries to understand the history of this kind of excess. Cheers. GD
As a (long ago) editor of Salient, I think your column is balanced and thoughtful and I agree with you
Thanks, Peter. That's much appreciated. GD
Dear Grant,
If I may share some thoughts, I hope related enough, continuing the discussion.
It is challenging times for societies and universities around the world. Events in the USA and UK are very much concerning, and they are happening, I would argue, due to overtollerance of modern liberal states towards free speech, combined with influence information operations by hostile states. Playing on sentiments and using half-truth mixed with lies, it is easy to introduce radical narratives, spread them and make repetitive. It becomes hard to fight gin let out of the bottles. As Russian infromarional strategy is - the aim is not to convince people in their lies per se, but rather to inflate confusion and doubt of whether there is truth and righteousness after all, accept new hostile thoughts and divide societies. Students have a powerful potential going as far as overthrowing governments. Once convinced in bad ideas (say, nazism) it becomes unimaginably costly to convince people in being wrong.
Immideately after reading your article, came across this Intelligence warning from UK:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/25/hostile-states-targeting-uk-universities-warns-mi5/
Taking Elon Musk as an example, I think it's not wholly accurate to characterize his policy at X as all-permissiveness - there are multiple complains and investigations arguing that he oppresses tool views differwnt from, while promotes often baseless claims and pure disinformation, using same principles of free speech multiplied by personal popularity or coding algorithms (even when unintentionally, out of arrogance, etc.). This is research on him in two parts:
https://vatniksoup.com/en/soups/201/
Hi Cyril. Thanks, and point taken regarding Elon... His case is more complicated than I've suggested. The Telegraph article is really interesting. I've been targetted by the Chinese myself before (though not for anything secret!). Cheers. PS: I must get that book back to you!
Good post!
Thanks!