Harvard’s Jacinda Ardean Calls on the United Nations to Crack Down on Free Speech as a Weapon of War
In his autobiographical work, The Uses of Literacy, published in 1957, Richard Hoggart noted that academics must be prepared to undertake the administrative work of the university or the university would cease to remain a self-governing community of scholars.
Events have proved the validity of Hoggart's warning. The modern university, not only in England but throughout the English-speaking world, has fallen under the destructive hand of high-priced bureaucrats, Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Deans, Vice-Deans and all manner of administrative assistants and staff who see scholars are mere underlings and drones to be reduced to a subordinate status, if they cannot be eliminated altogether by the deployment of minimum-wage adjuncts.
The destructive consequences of this transformation, not only for academia and its primary role in the pursuit and transmission of knowledge, but for society as a whole is now abundantly clear. Universities manifest an academic equivalent of Gresham's Law in accordance with which bad academics in administration drive out the good.
Examples of lunacy and corruption in academic administration are legion: here a professor penalized financially for refusing to adopt race-based grading*; there an admissions bribery scandal involving tens of millions paid to college officials.
 |
| Stephen Toope, former Cambridge Vice-Chancellor |
And confirming that the demand for respect for every opinion was not the result, simply, of careless drafting but a plan to impose the rule of political correctness, the university set up a snitch line to allow hypersensitive souls to report "micro-aggressions" such as eye-rolling in response to the opinion of persons of another characteristic, whatever a person of another characteristic may be.
Happily, this attempt to muzzle free speech in the name of free speech was so idiotic that it exploded in the face of the university's control-freak administration. There are many ideas in wide circulation today for which everyone has a right to express disrespect: advocacy for infanticide, aka partial birth abortion, for example, or pedophilia, female genital mutilation, racial quotas on university entry, and so on endlessly.
In an effort to mitigate the negative reaction to Vice-Chancellor Toope's attempt to compel respect for every opinion however idiotic, dangerous or offensive, the University of Cambridge's governing body, Regent House, demanded in place of respect, tolerance of every opinion. But tolerance of stupid or evil ideas is no virtue. Rather is is failure of moral responsibility, a failure that is the prerequisite to the most monstrous crimes against humanity.
Thus, as a headline in the Daily Telegraph put it succinctly: Stephen Toope embodied all that is rotten in our universities. Happily, Stephen Toope has now left Cambridge. Unhappily, little can be expected to change at Cambridge unless members of the university's governing body that appointed Toope as Vice-Chancellor resign too. That of course will not happen. The rot will continue, as at every other university in the land that was once a cradle of freedom.
* The professor has since been fired.
Related:
The Dystoopeian schemes of a Woke Canadian At the Head of Cambridge UniversityBy Douglas Murray
The Spectator, June 17, 2021: Regular readers may be aware that in recent months I have been having a running-spat with a Canadian lawyer called Stephen Toope. I am rarely exercised by Canadian lawyers, but this particular one is the current Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, and he seems intent on running that crown jewel of an institution into the ground.
Since taking over as Vice-Chancellor, Mr Toope has been responsible for a wide array of anti-free speech initiatives through which, as I recently remarked in the Daily Telegraph, he appears to want to transform Cambridge University into something like the Canadian bar association, but without the thrills, or the pay.
Anyhow – our spat came to a head after Mr Toope last month published his new guidance for informers in Cambridge.
The purpose of his new initiative was to allow students and faculty to anonymously inform on each other and report "micro-aggressions."
As I accurately wrote in the Telegraph, one of the examples of a micro-aggression offered by Mr. Toope's website for informers was a member of the university raising an eyebrow while any member of a minority was speaking. In the wake of the negative publicity, Toope took down his website for informers, claiming that it had gone off early, that the dog had eaten it, or some such lame excuse.
Anyhow, to my great amusement, Mr Toope has finally found some friends at Cambridge, or at least some suckers-up willing to write a half-arsed defence of him. Thus this letter appeared in the letters pages of the paper at the weekend. Here is the text in full:
Sir -
Douglas Murray has twice made unwarranted and highly personal attacks on the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, Professor Stephen J Toope (Comment, May 22 and June 8).
As heads of the University’s six academic schools, we are independent of the central administration, but we cannot stand by as Professor Toope is subject to such gross misrepresentation.
Cambridge is a democratic institution with roots stretching back 800 years. This means that no vice-chancellor can impose their will on the university, and all policy decisions proceed through an intricate and finely balanced committee structure. While we are sure generations of vice-chancellors have found this frustrating, it is a fact of life at Cambridge.
Mr Murray makes the absurd suggestion that Professor Toope wants to limit free speech and push an agenda in which academics can be punished for raising an eyebrow at a student. The reality is more mundane. Errors were made during the launch of a campaign to introduce new policies and procedures covering conduct in the workplace. The campaign website was taken down as soon as the mistakes were spotted and the policy and procedures are now subject to further democratic scrutiny.
Professor Toope is an eminent international lawyer and experienced university leader. He has made clear his commitment both to championing freedom of expression and to making the university a welcoming place for our students and staff, who hail from all over the world. The two aims are complementary, not incompatible. As a leader, he commands respect from across the University and as senior academics we offer him our unwavering support.
Professor John Dennis, Head of the School of Technology, Professor Tim Harper. Head of the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences' Professor Patrick Maxwell, Regius Professor of Physic and Head of the School of Clinical Medicine, Professor Nigel Peake, Head of the School of the Physical Sciences, Professor Anna Philpott, Head of the School of the Biological Sciences, Professor Chris Young, Head of the School of Arts and Humanities
I much enjoyed reading this attempt to defend Toope because if this is the best that the case for the defence has, then the defence is indeed what we used to call "piss-poor."
Let me take these academics' points one at a time:
First, they say that "Cambridge is a democratic institution… with a finely balanced committee structure&." But if this is so, why did Toope not seek formal approval from the General Board and Council of the university for all parts of his recent initiative? The reason that Toope himself gave for taking the website down was that it had not received proper scrutiny.
And if the structure of accountability at the university works so well, why did he not seek approval via the proper democratic mechanism? That would have been done by issuing a "Publication" in the Cambridge Reporter, which would have to be followed by a "Discussion" for scrutiny from Regent House before the final "Grace" (that is, democratic authorisation) was formulated.
These procedures may well be a "frustrating fact of life" at Cambridge, and it is perfectly possible that VCs have had to suffer through them for centuries. But then why did Toope ignore them completely?
Next the loyal Toopians (or Toopites) claim that my suggestion that Toope wants to limit free speech at Cambridge is "absurd." And they add that:
The campaign website was taken down as soon as the mistakes were spotted, and the policy and procedures are now subject to further democratic scrutiny.
This is completely ill-informed, and rather surprising from academics of such distinction. For their edification, here is the timeline:
Toope's campaign website went live on 17 May. The first Telegraph report on micro-aggressions material was published on 20 May. Yet the Vice Chancellor’s senior official overseeing the campaign (Pro Vice Chancellor Eilis Ferran) defended the campaign website in its entirety and in its original form in a letter to the Telegraph which was published on 24 May.
It was only after this defense that a part of the website was taken down. So Ferran, onToope's behalf (that's what the "pro" bit is for), should have known about the disgraceful material because it was what she was responding to in her letter.
The website to encourage snitches and informers in Cambridge University then went back up on 27 May.
Only after that was the entire campaign website taken down – on 7 June, three weeks after it went live, and two weeks after concerns were expressed in public. All this for a campaign that had been in the works for more than two years. Was that not time enough for proper scrutiny by all the relevant university bodies?
A further claim of the Toopians did make me laugh. They say:
"Professor Toope is an eminent international lawyer and experienced university leader." Of course "eminent" and "experienced" are terms much open to eye-of-the-beholder-ism. But if Toope is so very eminent and experienced, why has he demonstrated such monumental incompetence, not least in the most basic tools of university governance?
Toope permitted the ridiculous materials to be published. Toope failed to respect the democratic mechanisms of Cambridge by ignoring the need for approval from Regent House, the General Board, and the Council. And so, Toope has not only attempted to impose woke and other anti-free speech ideologies on Cambridge University, but he has done so via successive acts of extraordinary incompetence. Where exactly is the experience or eminence on display here?
It goes on. For if Toope is such a very great lawyer, why did he permit what could amount to unlawful changes to the disciplinary regime for all students and staff at the university?
Perhaps the eminent Canadian is simply ignorant of the fact that, for a full week, the university he presides over defined racism in a way that a court might have ruled, not just as unlawful, but as actually, in itself, an act of systemic discrimination against white students and staff on the basis of skin colour.
The definition of racism with which the Cambridge "Report + Support" begins says that "Racism...is a system of advantage that sets whiteness as the norm."
This definition – by suggesting that racism is a white phenomenon – would surely have fallen foul of section nine of the Equality Act, which Toope could have realised by reading the act. But perhaps it is too much to ask for him to have done so.
The Toope-ites claim that Toope himself "is committed to championing freedom of expression…As a leader, he commands respect from across the university and as senior academics we offer him our unwavering support."
But that just reads like the effusions of a few sycophants. If Toope commands such respect and is such a champion of free speech, why did he lose three major votes on his statement on freedom of speech last year? And by some of the biggest margins recorded at Regent House since the Second World War.
Finally, the Toopians claim that defending free expression and being a welcoming place to people from all over the world are "complementary, not incompatible" aims.
But putting aside for a moment why these dons think Cambridge was ever such an unwelcoming place, their assertion is clearly flat-out wrong. There plainly are contradictions between the two aims and it is stupid to suggest otherwise.
| when you incite hatred,you don’t deserve a platform...your ideas are hurtful to Canada. |
| According to the latest dossier prepared by the Indian intelligence officials, Jagmeet Singh, the Leader of Canada’s second-largest party, remains a ”pro-Khalistani and a pro-Pakistani” ringleader in the country despite his deep Punjabi roots. On a specific report of India’s external intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing, Singh was denied a visa in 2013 for his anti-Indian stance. The RAW has revealed in one its report that Singh had been funding Khalistani outfits, operating from Pakistan. He is also connected with prominent Khalistani and Kashmiri separatist groups based in different countries of Europe. Latest reports also suggest that Jagmeet Singh is also trying to bring Khalistani and Kashmiri separatists under one umbrella in Canada. Recently he held a meeting in this connection at his residence in Ontario. |
| He [Bernier] wasted little time ... tossing out an incendiary anti-Semitic slur ... when he declared that “the other leaders on this stage are globalists” and attacked the United Nations as a “dysfunctional organization.” |
