Season's greetings!
For anyone who received an email from a Mr Chris Brand recently, which I think is probably anyone on the Edinburgh Philosophy postgrad page, here is a link to some background:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/search/results.cgi?search=dan+dennis
Here is the text of the reply I sent to him; please feel free to copy:
Dear Chris Brand,
Please do not spam me with any such email again. I have no wish to learn about your campaign to oblige universities to support homophobia and superstition.
Sincerely,
Conor McHugh
And, for those of you who did not get the email (which was sent to Dan Dennis and CCed to a bunch of other people), here it is:
Dear Dan Dennis, I was glad to learn via the Glasgow Herald (22 xii) of your support for academic free speech. Just let me know if there's anything I can do to help. NB matters are perhaps a bit more tricky than you might think, as I outlined for UK Christian Unions in a recent letter, pasted below. Yours sincerely, -- Chris Brand (MA Oxon [Psychology and Philosophy]).
------------------------------------------------------------To: The President, Exeter University Christian Union Re: 'Students Consult Lawyers After Refusal to Reinstate Exeter Christian Union'(http://www.christiantoday.com/article/students.consult.lawyers.after.refusal.to.reinstate.exeter.christian.union/8627.htm.
The saga started in May this year when one student felt the CU's requirement that CU members attest biblical principles was too "exclusive" for him -- probably in its not condoning homosexual behaviour. Full account: http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=99353 and http://www.lawcf.org/lawreformdetail.php?ID=232.)
Edinburgh, 6th December 2006.
Dear James Harding,
It's great to gather from the media that UCCF and Exeter University Christian Union have the will to fight for freedom of belief, speech, expression and association in Britain's universities. Freedom is a most important cause, as is support for traditional family values; and both causes have been abandoned by many British academics over the past twenty years. Times Higher recently reported that 80% of British academics said universities had sacrificed the principle of academic freedom (26th October).
But I write principally to urge a little clever caution in view of press reports of your planned legal action. In particular, I suggest your legal team should not put much reliance on the 1986 Education (No. 2) Act, for this statute only *appears* to oblige universities to support free speech.
In 1998, Edinburgh University successfully argued (against me and my counsel) before a Scottish High Court judge that any duty that it had to support free speech took second place to its need to support its own reputation and income. In a particularly astonishing passage among complex legal proceedings, it was argued by the University that it had no more duty to support free speech than did *a biscuit factory* -- and this argument was essentially accepted. I honestly advise that UCCF lawyers look carefully at http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/McDNLArch3b.htm for more (FIND 'Decision of Mr T. Gordon Coutts QC') to see what they would be up against.
Of course, Edinburgh University's attitude to free speech was and is disgraceful; but I imagine, in view of all the trouble that Exeter University has given your Christian Union so far, that Exeter will follow suit. One way forward could be to publicize the inadequacies of the 1986 statute via the media, for I'm sure there would be wide public sympathy once it was realized that British universities had spinelessly accepted legislation actually undermining their historic duty to defend free speech. Alternatively, it would be important, apparently, to gather evidence that allowing expression of 'homophobic' views would not diminish, and might actually enhance the reputation and income of a university.
Sorry if this is initially dispiriting; but I want you to win, not lose! You're welcome to let me know if there is anything else you feel I can do to help. I am yours sincerely,
-- Chris Brand (psychologist, author of 'The g Factor').
PS The latest from Edinburgh University is a compromise offer of accommodation for the Christian Union's (allegedly homophobic) PURE course so long as information (which the University would itself supply) is prominently displayed to the effect that some groups (telephone helplines supplied) think homosexuality is just fine. However, no such 'health warnings' were planned to oblige the Islamic Society to explain that its Hamas speakers were anti-Semitic, or to point biology students to creationist points of view about the origins of life. Rather than litter its clubs and courses with health warnings, the University would surely do better to put up a sign at its Old College HQ declaring 'Anything said in this university may be rubbish -- especially the University's own unprincipled and fast-changing views on freedom of speech.' The University's Student newspaper carried a fine letter (from Scott George McCombe, 5th December) pointing out the classic error of calling for 'free speech so long as it is responsible/sensitive/inoffensive/balanced etc.': for there is simply *no need* to provide 'freedom' for speech that wouldn't upset anyone -- a point that was made unavailingly to Edinburgh University as it aimed to placate its 'anti-racists' and feminazies back in 1996/7/8.
2 comments:
Just realised the link I posted might expire. Here is the text of the article from The Herald:
A group of influential scholars has caused controversy in the cloisters of academia by proclaiming the right to be offensive.
The rebellion against the regime of political correctness has been published on a website signed so far by 64 academics, calling for their profession to enjoy the "unrestricted liberty" to be offensive to others without fear of sanction. Only two Scottish-based academics are on the list: Dan Dennis, of Edinburgh University – centre of a long-running dispute in the 1990s over the views of a psychology lecturer – and Cate Watson, of the School of Education at Aberdeen University.
The campaign, launched in the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) with support from, among others, the leading philosopher AC Grayling, calls for current laws to be extended to ensure that academics are free to "question and test received wisdom, and to put forward unpopular opinions".
The campaign has been led by Dennis Hayes, joint president of the University and College Union and head of the centre for professional learning at Canterbury Christ Church University.
He said: "The responsibility to speak your mind and challenge conventional wisdom defines the university and stands as a model for open debate in wider society.
"In today's political climate it is harder than ever for academics to defend open debate. Restrictive legislation, and the bureaucratic rules and regulations of government quangos and of universities themselves, have undermined academic freedom.
"Many academics are fearful of upsetting managers and politicians by expressing controversial opinions.
"Afraid to challenge mainstream thought, many pursue self-censorship."
If adopted in law, according to the THES, it would give all academics the right to speak out on any issue, "both inside and outside the classroom", whether or not it was part of their area of academic expertise and "whether or not these (issues) were deemed offensive". The campaign might offer a belated crumb of comfort to Chris Brand, the Edinburgh University psychologist who was sacked in 1997 for his controversial views.
He was at the centre of a long-running row after writing a book claiming that white people were more intelligent than black people. The university issued a warning about his teaching style, and some students demanded he be sacked.
Since then Mr Brand has worked as a waiter and written extensively for publications and organisations that embrace iconoclastic views.
The statement also gives support to Frank Ellis, a Leeds University lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies who took early retirement before a disciplinary case over his comments that white people were more intelligent than black people, and to Andrew McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics at Leeds, who has been sharply criticised for claiming that the world is only 6000 years old and that evolutionary theory is wrong.
Meanwhile, historian David Irving was last night deported from Austria after serving a jail sentence for denying that the Holocaust took place.
The author served a year of a three-year sentence.
I especially like "Since then Mr Brand has worked as a waiter..."
Post a Comment