A group of Oxford University students has launched a petition urging the university to ‘consider the suitability’ as a Professor of the University of one David Coleman. Coleman, a professor of demography, is also an honorary consultant for the anti-immigration group MigrationWatch UK, and a member of the Galton Institute, which is associated with eugenics.
What seems to be at stake is not anything in particular that the professor has said, but the very fact that someone with such connections and ideas should enjoy the prestige of being a Professor of the University. Campaign spokesman Kieran Hutchinson Dean told the student paper Cherwell, ‘By offering interviews as a “Professor of Oxford University”, he lends credibility to his political viewpoint. The main point of the petition is to raise awareness of his views and affiliations among students. We do not expect everyone to agree, but think that it is an interesting and important debate to have.”
There is something odd about this. The campaigners are concerned that Coleman is using his position to lend credibility to his opinions, and yet they feel the need to ‘raise awareness’ of both. If people are not already aware of the professor’s opinions, how can they be influenced by his university professorship? More importantly, if this is such an important debate to have, then why initiate it with a petition hinting that Coleman should be sacked, rather than by making a positive case for immigration and against eugenics?
In truth, it seems that the students concerned are less interested in debate than in mobilising the power of taboo to win the scalp of someone whose academic reputation is currently far greater than his public profile. Rather than arguing against Coleman, they are trying to brand him as a racist (without even having the courage to use the word in their petition). But while there is a powerful taboo against racism, opposition to immigration is a mainstream view that is at the heart of government policy. A group calling itself Student Action for Refugees would do better having out the hard arguments rather than hiding behind taboos, like the three monkeys.
It should be noted that both the university and the local MP Evan Harris, as well as Dennis Hayes of Academics for Academic Freedom, have responded to the petition by reasserting the importance of free speech and freedom of association, and it seems very unlikely that Coleman will lose his university professorship. Nonetheless, the campaign serves to reinforce the idea that certain opinions are not to be tolerated in the polite society of the university, even if they are widely held in society at large. This reduces the university to a safe haven for sensitive souls, rather than a forum for open enquiry. Coleman has a moral as well as legal right to his opinions. His opponents have an intellectual responsibility to challenge them rather than resorting to phoney 'exposés' and smears.
What seems to be at stake is not anything in particular that the professor has said, but the very fact that someone with such connections and ideas should enjoy the prestige of being a Professor of the University. Campaign spokesman Kieran Hutchinson Dean told the student paper Cherwell, ‘By offering interviews as a “Professor of Oxford University”, he lends credibility to his political viewpoint. The main point of the petition is to raise awareness of his views and affiliations among students. We do not expect everyone to agree, but think that it is an interesting and important debate to have.”
There is something odd about this. The campaigners are concerned that Coleman is using his position to lend credibility to his opinions, and yet they feel the need to ‘raise awareness’ of both. If people are not already aware of the professor’s opinions, how can they be influenced by his university professorship? More importantly, if this is such an important debate to have, then why initiate it with a petition hinting that Coleman should be sacked, rather than by making a positive case for immigration and against eugenics?
In truth, it seems that the students concerned are less interested in debate than in mobilising the power of taboo to win the scalp of someone whose academic reputation is currently far greater than his public profile. Rather than arguing against Coleman, they are trying to brand him as a racist (without even having the courage to use the word in their petition). But while there is a powerful taboo against racism, opposition to immigration is a mainstream view that is at the heart of government policy. A group calling itself Student Action for Refugees would do better having out the hard arguments rather than hiding behind taboos, like the three monkeys.
It should be noted that both the university and the local MP Evan Harris, as well as Dennis Hayes of Academics for Academic Freedom, have responded to the petition by reasserting the importance of free speech and freedom of association, and it seems very unlikely that Coleman will lose his university professorship. Nonetheless, the campaign serves to reinforce the idea that certain opinions are not to be tolerated in the polite society of the university, even if they are widely held in society at large. This reduces the university to a safe haven for sensitive souls, rather than a forum for open enquiry. Coleman has a moral as well as legal right to his opinions. His opponents have an intellectual responsibility to challenge them rather than resorting to phoney 'exposés' and smears.
Dolan Cummings
No comments:
Post a Comment