Monthly Archives: August 2022

In the middle of July, three big blue billboards went up in and around Jackson, Mississippi. Pregnant? You still have a choice, they informed passing motorists, inviting them to visit Mayday.Health to learn more. Anybody who did landed on a website that provides information about at-home abortion pills and ways to get them delivered anywhere in the United Statesincluding parts of the country, such as Mississippi, where abortions are now illegal under most circumstances.

A few days ago, the founders of the nonprofit that paid for the billboard ads, Mayday Health, received a subpoena from the office of the attorney general of Mississippi. (The state has already been at the center of recent debates about abortion: Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, upheld a Mississippi statute by allowing states to put strict limits on abortion.) The subpoena, which I have seen, demands a trove of documents about Mayday Health and its activities. It may be the first step in an effort to force Mayday Health to take down the billboards, or even to prosecute the organizations leaders for aiding and abetting criminal conduct.

Mayday Health is not backing down. This week, it is taking out a television ad on Mississippi channels and putting up 20 additional billboards. This makes the legal fight over the Jackson billboards a crucial test in two interrelated conflicts about abortion that are still coming into public view.

Read: The abortion-rights message that some activists hate

The first is that the availability of abortion pills, which are very safe and effective during the first three months of pregnancy, has transformed the stakes of the abortion fight. The pro-life movement has hoped that states new powers to shut down abortion providers will radically reduce the number of abortions around the country. The pro-choice movement has feared that the end of Roe will lead to a resurgence of back-alley abortions that seriously threaten womens health.

Yet the changes wrought by the recent Supreme Court ruling may turn out to be more contained than meets the eye: Legal restrictions on first-trimester abortions have become much harder to enforce because a simple pill can now be used to induce a miscarriage. Abortion by medication is widely available in large parts of the country; as Mayday Health points out on its website, even women who are residents in states where doctors cannot prescribe such pills can set up a temporary forwarding address and obtain them by mail.

The second brewing conflict is about limits on free speech. So long as abortions required an in-person medical procedure, the pro-life movement could hope to reduce them by shutting down local clinics offering the service. Now that comparatively cheap and convenient workarounds exist for most cases, effective curbs on abortion require the extra step of preventing people from finding out about these alternatives. That is putting many members of the pro-life movement, be they Mississippis attorney general or Republican legislators in several states who are trying to pass draconian restrictions on information and advice about abortions, on a collision course with the First Amendment.

Some limits on speech are reasonable. States do, for example, have a legitimate interest in banning advertisements for illegal drugs. If a cocaine dealer took out a billboard advertising his wares, the government should obviously be able to take it down. Especially when it comes to commercial speech, some common-sense restrictions on what people can say or claim have always existed and are well-justified.

But the laws that Republicans are now introducing in state legislatures around the country go far beyond such narrow limits on objectionable commercial speech. In South Carolina, for example, Republican legislators have recently sponsored a bill that would criminalize providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone, internet, or any other mode of communication regarding self-administered abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an abortion.

Read: The coming rise of abortion as a crime

This lawwhich is modeled on draft legislation that the National Right to Life Committee is trying to get passed in many states around the countrywould seriously undermine the right to free speech. It could potentially make doctors in states where abortion is actually legal liable to prosecution for discussing their services with someone who calls them from a state where abortion is illegal. It could even outlaw basic forms of speech such as news stories containing information that might be used by someone seeking an abortion. Theoretically, even this article could fall under that proscription.

The subpoena issued by the office of Mississippis attorney general is objectionable for similar reasons. Mayday Health is not advertising a commercial product or service. The organization does not handle or distribute abortion pills. All it does is provide information. Although one could reasonably believe that the information Mayday Health is providing may be used to commit acts that are now illegal in some parts of the United States, a ban on informational speech that can be used for the purposes of lawbreaking would be unacceptably broad and vague. After all, would-be lawbreakers might also consult the blog posts of lawyers who explain how to object to an improper search of a vehicle or study the pages of a novel to figure out how to make a Molotov cocktail. Should the attorney or the novelist also be considered to have aided or abetted a crime?

Recent efforts to suppress speech about abortion would seriously undermine the nations ability to debate the topic openly and honestly. Anybody who believes in the importance of the First Amendment should oppose them. As Will Creeley, the legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, has pointed out, These proposals are a chilling attempt to stifle free speech Whether you agree with abortion or not is irrelevant. You have the right to talk about it.

In recent years, the wider debate about free speech has undergone a strange transformation. Historically, the American left staunchly defended the First Amendment because it recognized the central part that free speech played in the struggles against slavery and segregation, and in the fight for the rights of women and sexual minorities. But as establishment institutions, including universities and corporations, became more progressive, and parts of the left came to feel that they had a significant share in institutional power, the absolute commitment to free speech waned.

Progressives started to find the idea of restrictions on free speech appealing because they assumed that those making decisions about what to allow and what to ban would share their views and values. Today, some on the extremist left endorse restrictions on free speech, demanding campus speech codes and measures to force social-media sites to deplatform controversial commentators and censor what they claim is misinformation.

Mary Ziegler: Why exceptions for the life of the mother have disappeared

The transformation of the lefts position on freedom of speech has allowed both principled conservatives and the less-than-principled protagonists of the MAGA movement to cast themselves as defenders of the First Amendment. In the mind of many people, the cause of free speech has astoundingly quickly shifted from being associated with left-wing organizations such as the ACLU to becoming the property of right-leaning pundits and politicians.

This makes the new front in the fight over abortion rights an important reminder of why the left should never abandon the cause of free speech. If the left gives up on the core commitment to free speech, what people can say is as likely to be determined by the attorney general of Mississippi as it is by college deans or tech workers. Curbs on free expression have always been a tool of governments that seek to control the lives of their citizens and punish those who defy them. The same remains true today.

Continue reading here:
Why Freedom of Speech Is the Next Abortion Fight - The Atlantic

This show originally aired August 9, 2021

In her new book, Suzanne Nossel delves into the nation's culture wars over the right to free speech and argues that the way forward as a society is to ensure an open market of ideas and protect all speech even that which we disagree with.

Does free speech play an essential role in promoting democracy and human rights? If speech isn't free, who controls it? What are the potential implications of reining in free speech and expression?

What can be done to secure freedom of expression in a "diverse, digitalized, and divided culture"? How can we combat the propagation of disinformation "without running roughshod over values of equality"?

Is it possible to protect free speech and mitigate the harmful impacts of hate speech in the real world and online? Is it possible to support free speech and also battle bigotry? Where should we draw the line?

Guest:Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America and author of "Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All"

"The Source" is a live call-in program airing Mondays through Thursdays from 12-1 p.m. Leave a message before the program at(210) 615-8982. During the live show, call833-877-8255, emailthesource@tpr.orgor tweet@TPRSource.

*This interview was recorded on Monday, August 9.

Originally posted here:
Nossel: To Safeguard Free Speech, We Must Protect Everyone's Right To Be Heard Even Those With Views Offensive To Others - Texas Public Radio

Internet blackouts. Strategic lawsuits against journalists. Regulations restricting the activities of NGOs. The weaponisation of health and security policies. These are all strategies that governments around the world are increasingly using to curtail the right to dissent, protest, and even just access information.

The data is clear: 80 percent of the worlds population lives with less freedom of expression than they had a decade ago, according to this years The Global Expression Report, which I authored, working with statistician Nicole Steward-Streng. The report is published annually by Article 19, a NGO that promotes freedom of expression around the world.

Our research this year shows that only seven percent of people live in a country where freedom of expression has improved over the last decade, and more than one third or 2.6 billion people live in countries where it is in crisis.

Myanmar and Afghanistan saw the largest ever declines in freedom of expression scores last year. This followed amilitary coupin the former, and thereturn of the Talibanto power after two decades of insurgency in the latter. In both cases, the new regimes severely limited freedom of the press, social space for activism, and access to information.

While the scores have not been tabulated since Russia invaded Ukraine at the end of February, both countries are expected to suffer similar plunges this year: Armed conflict is a catastrophe for freedom of expression without exception.

While these dramatic events naturally make headlines, less attention is paid to the slow-marching decline of freedom of expression over time.

Armed conflict is a catastrophe for freedom of expression without exception.

Freedom of expression and democracy are intimately linked, and both are deteriorating on a global scale. State restrictions on free speech are a clear sign that a government is turning away from its people. And once voices are silenced, autocracy is easy work.

The slow reduction of freedom of expression is most marked in the Americas, where countries like Colombia, El Salvador, and Brazil, have seen sustained declines over time as institutions have been eroded and the environment for organisation, civic action, and dissent has been constricted. Hungary and Poland have also seen a steady deterioration of their scores.

These types of declines might happen more slowly, and without violence and upheaval, but they can be just as severe for the people living through them.

Varieties of Democracy, or VDem, is a research initiative that uses hundreds of indicators to measure how robust a given democracy is. Their data shows us that attacks on free expression are often the first step in a democratic backslide, and are frequently followed by the erosion of democratic institutions and then the undermining of elections.

The downward trajectory often starts with restrictions on the press, internet censorship, suppression of protests, or the murder of activists with no accountability. Once on this path, the destination is clear: democratic decline.

The career of Russian President Vladimir Putin provides a clear example of how the decline progresses. Since he took office in 2000, Putin has been eroding the space for public debate in Russia. He moved from dismantling independent media and establishing discursive control to eroding governing institutions, centralising power, and ensuring his permanence in leadership via a referendum and elections where the outcomes were largely predetermined.

Putins efforts have been repeated on a smaller scale across the globe: The level of democracy enjoyed by the average citizen around the world in 2021 has regressed to 1989 levels: 70 percent of the global population lives under dictatorships, according to VDems data. Thats a rise of 20 percent over the past decade.

If this trend continues, we risk reaching a tipping point where enough countries are governed by autocrats and dictators, who support and bolster one another economically and in the international arena, that sanctions will become ineffective and that international governance and human rights bodies will be undermined and diluted to the point of futility.

The level of democracy enjoyed by the average citizen around the world in 2021 has regressed to 1989 levels.

The effort to suppress free expression by anti-democratic regimes is also not limited to within their borders. We have seen abductions and the kidnapping of journalists and dissidents across borders and the abuse of Interpol notices. Cases like that of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered in 2018, have shown us that authoritarian states feel increasingly confident in their ability to commit crimes and to attempt to silence freedom of expression beyond their borders, without facing consequences.

Russia, for example, has long targeted dissidents outside its borders. But only in the wake of the Ukraine invasion has the international community taken strong measures to hold Putins government to account. Meanwhile, the wider lesson seems to have escaped the international community: Even as Western countries slap sanctions on Russia, they have slowly allowed Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman back into the fold, despite his appalling record of suppressing freedom of expression online and evidence that he played a role in the murder of Khashoggi.

The international response to attacks on freedom of expression has been, at best, uneven, consisting of empty words or slaps on the wrist that do little to deter countries from attacking protesters, journalists, and netizens.

We can no longer allow this impunity to reign. As an urgent first step, we must reframe the conversation. There is a growing tendency towards sensationalist and myopic discussions of free speech focusing on hot-button political issues that miss the bigger picture: Freedom of expression means freedom of all expression in the press, through protest, and online. It also encompasses our right to access the information we need about government decisions.

The very real attacks on those rights have many faces, which we must continue to identify and begin to push back against by demanding better of our leaders and representatives, as well as the companies who inform and mediate our means of expression and the information we consume.

The right to freedom of expression defines how we interact, what we know, and how we partake in the way our societies are run and therefore, how we live as individuals and collectively. We must start to defend it by demanding consistent, meaningful action from leaders to protect and ensure that freedom, both for ourselves, and for others within our societies and beyond.

Edited by Abby Seiff.

See the original post here:
Why the backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end - The New Humanitarian

It was 3 December 2021, and South College, Durham University, was having its Christmas formal. Formals happen every week here, says Miatta Pemberton (not her real name), who is in her second year at the college. Its a longstanding Durham thing. You put on a gown that cost 60, or, if youre like me, you buy it off eBay for 20. For a special occasion, it would be normal to have a speaker and announce them in advance. By 5pm, the speaker hadnt been announced, and Pemberton found out who it was by chance from the colleges vice-principal, Lee Worden. She couldnt immediately place the person; she just knew shed heard the name for all the wrong reasons.

About 15 to 20 students more familiar with Rod Liddles work in the Spectator and the Sunday Times (sample headline on one of his columns from 2018: Im identifying as a young, black, trans chihuahua), walked out before hed started speaking. As they did so, Tim Luckhurst, the college principal who had invited Liddle, shouted: At South College, we value freedom of speech, and Pathetic!. So the mood wasnt great, but there were still upwards of 180 students in the hall as Liddle stood up to speak. He began by saying he was disappointed not to see any sex workers there, a reference to a controversy from the previous month, when the students union was attacked for offering safety training to students involved in sex work. The story was picked up by the tabloid press, which mobilised the opinion wing of the Daily Mail, which then brought in the then further education minister, Michelle Donelan, who accused the union of legitimising a dangerous industry which thrives on the exploitation of women. If you were a culture-war correspondent looking for the frontline, youd go to Durham: it is where things kick off.

Liddle continued his speech: A person with an X and a Y chromosome, that has a long, dangling penis, is scientifically a man, and that is pretty much, scientifically, the end of the story. Which is objectively a weird thing to hear when youre trying to eat, says Pemberton. At this point a further 20 or so students walked out and missed the bit about colonialism not being remotely the major cause of Africas problems, and Liddles contention that structural racism has nothing to do with educational underachievement among British people of Caribbean descent. Speaking to me over the phone from his home in the Pennines, Liddle says his point was: Weve got not to be scared of other peoples opinions, no matter what they are. There are things I believe in, which you almost certainly wont. We think the same thing transgender people have a right to dignity and respect. We just disagree on whether theyre biologically a man.

Luckhurst and Liddle have a friendship dating from the mid-80s, when they worked in adjoining rooms on the shadow cabinet corridor in Westminster, writing speeches for Labour MPs. The left has always been our enemy, says Liddle; and its true that long before wokeness existed, before cancellation was a culture, even before its ancestor political correctness was born, the party of the left has been at war over who was the right kind of left. Both men then worked for Radio 4s Today programme, Luckhurst going on to become editor of news programmes at BBC Scotland, and later, briefly, editor of the Scotsman. When he became an academic in 2007, he had an august CV in both print and broadcast media, and quite a wonky, old-school passion for news values. Free-speech provocations dont seem to be his primary interest, though his and Liddles self-fashioning as thorns in the side of pearl-clutching liberals is at the centre of their friendship.

The two men differed on something, though: Liddle had no problem with students walking out, nor with the fact that the ones who remained sat in silence when he finished. Apparently theyre all meant to stand at the end, and they didnt. I thought, frankly, who gives a fuck? By contrast, Luckhurst was upset that they hadnt listened respectfully. After the dinner, scenes ensued, culminating in Luckhurst telling a student (off-camera) that they shouldnt be at university, and his wife, Dorothy, shouting: Arse, arse, arse, arse, arse youre not allowed to say arse, apparently, and asking students what they were so frightened of.

It was all a bit Animal Farm looking from face to face, trying to recall which ones are the stoics and which the snowflakes. Which ones are the grownups and which the kids? Whos trying to cancel who? And why is it such catnip to the rightwing press?

The South College debacle, and the sex worker training scandal before it, along with the many headlines and thinkpieces they generated, were just a typical season in Durhams culture-war calendar. From the universitys Bullingdon-style social clubs, the rightwing provocations are reliably eyebrow-raising: in 2017, the Trevelyan rugby club staged a Thatcher versus the miners pub crawl, while five years earlier, St Cuthberts rugby club had an event where guests dressed as Jimmy Savile. In 2021 a Durham student posted a clip of a white man blacked up to dress as Kanye West (though an investigation found that he wasnt a student at the university). Periodically, therell be a leak of WhatsApp or Facebook messages containing sometimes hair-raising misogyny (it was alleged that one informal group launched a competition in 2020 to see who could fuck the poorest fresher) or enough outright neo-nazism to see established groups the Durham University Conservative Association (DUCA), along with its Free Market Association (DUFMA) closed down, as they were in 2020.

On the left, the actions are those youd recognise from any undergraduate arena: climate marches, usually small in scale; racial awareness training; pressure to decolonise the curriculum. In the case of the sex worker training, loads of unis have it, says Niall Hignett, a leftwing campaigner at South College. Students are doing it because of their financial situation. Giving them support and advice wasnt encouraging it it was trying to make sure they were safe. In the topsy-turvy world with which we should now probably be familiar, its this rather muted leftwing activism that generates most of the whither intellectual freedom? debate in the Spectator and among Conservative MPs and ministers; the Daily Mail will cover absolutely anything, left or right, so long as it happens in Durham. The academic William Davies, at Goldsmiths, has noted that this fascination stems from perhaps the fundamental battle of the culture wars: who has the right to narrate British identity newspapers or universities?

Durham University finds the coverage frustrating, and says it doesnt reflect the campus experience at all. Professors and post-grads describe an atmosphere very like the general student population: broadly progressive in stance. One member of the Durham People of Colour Association says, tellingly, that when they have been subject to abuse, its been keyboard warriors coming at them because of the Daily Mail misquoting things, or misrepresenting us in biased ways. But how does a university become a hotbed for these extreme political schisms? Is it all a media confection and, if it isnt, why does anyone go there?

As soon as I step off the train for the first time, in April, I am hit by that very distinctive atmosphere of a place that can seem entirely its university from the demographic (everyone seems to be 18 or 45), to the town planning, which drives you towards the colleges, to the lack of regular retail outlets and proliferation of tea shops. It even smells like students. Josh Freestone, 19, in his second year studying philosophy and politics, is in the Durham University Labour Club, and describes both his and its politics as to the left of the Labour party Corbynite. The Liddle event distilled for him a sense of disillusionment: I very much believe the students are the beating heart of the university, but theres been very little attempt to centre us.

The university is informally divided into Hill (10 colleges outside the dead centre, either side of Elvet Hill, mostly built since the 1960s South College was built in 2020); and Bailey (five colleges clustered around the cathedral, built in the 1800s or very early 1900s).

The Bailey area is overwhelmed by signs saying private. Stand still for one second and some officious retiree will try to give you directions one makes me wait while she tells a tourist about the cathedral, and I have to listen to her yawing on about St Cuthbert, when I never asked for directions in the first place. When youre used to an urban environment, in which the baseline assumption is that space is public unless its somebodys house, its hard to overstate how irritating this is, but it also must feel quite containing if youre from a boarding school. The Hill area has nothing but colleges. Max Kendix, now 20 and in his final year, is the ex-editor of the student newspaper Palatinate, and at University College, known as Castle. Hes skinny, droll, serious-minded, incredibly nice: Id first met him in the holidays in London, where hes from. He says: I lived on the main street in Bailey in my first year, and Id be woken every Friday night by a crowd of people, a huge crowd, running down from the Hill shouting, If you live on the Bailey youre a cunt. But the irony is that we wouldnt do the same. Wed never go to the Hill. Theres nothing there. Apart from the freestyling tour guides, theres very little sense of town versus gown, because theres almost nothing in either the centre or the Hill that isnt gown-related.

The university as a whole has the highest proportion of privately educated students in the country, at nearly 40%, and the Bailey colleges, particularly Hatfield, have the most intense concentration of students from a small clutch of boarding schools. Sophie Corcoran, a Durham student and a maverick rightwinger with an already significant profile on GB News and talkRadio (I speak to her over the phone as she is still at home in Thurrock), says: A lot of people who dont necessarily know each other from school, know of one another from school. Corcoran is extremely opinionated on social media (anti-immigrant, anti-benefit-claimant, anti-trans). A slip recently, where a separate account replied as if they were her, suggests that her online profile may be a group effort not exactly a sockpuppet account, since she is definitely real; more of a sock chorus. There is no issue on which she cannot summon a callous view, but one-to-one she has a kind of studs-first life force. I wouldnt be surprised if, one day, she flipped the other way politically, but maybe thats wishful thinking.

Figures like Corcoran are marginal in student politics, as she readily admits: she gained no traction when she stood for election to the students union I had more chance of winning North Korea than Durham students union, she says blithely and has no foothold in its rightwing political scene, whose members, she says, only like women there if they can sleep with them. If you have an opinion, they hate you. Besides, she says, theyre all on drugs. If working-class people like us did drugs like they do, wed be called crackheads. Its a completely different story with rich people.

Much more influential than any nebulous cultural atmosphere is the lack of diversity, in the Bailey colleges particularly. Kendix describes one Hatfield tradition: They were the last college to let women in, and when they were voting on it, the JCR [junior common room, which is the student body in a college] voted against. This was the 80s. The authorities at the college went ahead with it anyway, and as a form of protest the students started banging their spoons against the tables at the start of formals. Thats now a tradition. Every formal starts with that the girls do it, too.

Can you draw a straight line from people banging spoons to mourn the decline of male supremacy to an alleged competition to see who could fuck the poorest fresher? Its hard to say, and I dont know that the behaviour reflects attitudes that are real; sometimes these Durham scandals feel manufactured as debate points for an insatiable media.

Katie Anne Tobin is a PhD student who became involved in activism around sexual violence when she was an undergraduate at Sussex. Durham is a mixed picture, she says: in the university as a whole, there are figures like Clarissa Humphreys and Graham Towl working tirelessly to root out sexual violence in higher education settings, having authored a Good Practice Guide thats well respected nationally. Yet Tobin says the collegiate system often thwarts the universitys efforts: The colleges create their own policy, they execute their own discipline, and theyve got their own reputations to maintain. I know a lot of people who have been made to feel like feminist killjoys if theyre open about the issues in their college. The whisper networks are insidious.

Plus, the lack of diversity definitely tells in the student experience. In 2020, Lauren White compiled A Report on Northern Student Experience at Durham University, after being relentlessly mocked for having grown up in Gateshead, 15 miles away. The report quotes one student as saying: In the college dining hall I have been called a dirty northerner, and a chav A fellow student asked me: Are you going to take the spare food home to feed your family?

Sign up to Inside Saturday

The only way to get a look behind the scenes of our brand new magazine, Saturday. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend.

According to Kendix: Youre more likely to meet someone from the same London borough as you than you are to meet someone from a different county. Pemberton says, You wont have someone hurling insults at you day to day. But you feel it. You walk into a room thinking: why do I feel so on edge? Oh, Im the only brown person in a room full of 200 people.

The university points to its efforts in this area theres a programme to support black-heritage students, a number of scholarships available to state school students, particularly in the north-east. In 2010/11, 79.9% of Durhams student intake was white. In 2020/21, it was 67.6%. Its efforts may have been hampered somewhat by the collegiate structure, since colleges make their own individual decisions about intake and convention.

One English professor, who Ill call Sanders, says of the Liddle debacle: This is the sort of thing that makes me unhappy. South College is our newest college. You can build a culture from the ground up, and he [Luckhurst] built a college with a high table and a Latin grace. When were not thinking on our feet, we fall into these old habits. Sanders is speaking to me in their sprawling, book-messy faculty room, a David Lodge-style picture of the idealised academic life. They are in their early 50s, take seriously the decolonisation of the curriculum if anyone came out of my classes thinking the moral impact of the British empire was railways, I wouldnt have done my job and only want to be anonymous for professional courtesy reasons, not because they see themselves as a besieged wokey. As for the culture as a whole, Durham does, Sanders says, have some posh boys who behave really badly. We probably have a higher percentage than the University of Salford, say. Often the picture is not wrong, but its very partial.

Part of this institutions failure to dramatically improve diversity, Sanders speculates, is risk-aversion due to anxiety about keeping their Russell Group status: they were only admitted in 2012, its quite hard to cling on without a medical school, and that went to Newcastle when the two universities separated in 1963. When I first arrived, Sanders says, the rhetoric was: the group of large universities with medical schools who call themselves the Russell Group. Once we got admitted, it was the elite universities known as the Russell Group.

I meet Niall Hignett in the shared kitchen of his student halls at South College; the summer term is just beginning, and the windows across the campus are still studded with Post-it notes, reading Bin Tim, Transphobes are not welcome here Tim, Eat the rich and Council college. Hignett is a member of the Labour Club and the Working-Class Students Association, and president of Durham Against Rough Sleeping; he is relaxed, very funny, indefatigable. He comes from an estate in Cheshire new-build social housing, which is really tacky. So to me this felt like luxury and has been a bete noire of the rightwing press due to the protests he organised after that Christmas formal. He finds this amusing showing me photos the Telegraph took of him, in which they try to make him look like an unsmiling, incredibly large-chinned trade unionist and very useful.

For Hignett, the purposefully provocative culture war stuff is mainly driven by the myopia of privilege. If youve only ever been a public school and been surrounded by people who are like you, youve never really experienced enough of the world to know that running around dressed as Jimmy Savile is its not offensive, I dont even know how to describe it. When youre on the doorstep of mining communities who were ravaged by Thatcherism, and youre dressing up as Thatcher theres micro-aggression and theres aggression-aggression. But he uses these flashpoints to his advantage: when he organised the protests against Liddles speech, it was reported by the Daily Mail, as well as the Times and on GB News, with an almost audible eyeball roll (Now Durham students threaten a rent strike over Rod Liddle). It was misleading, but it was also true: Hignett had devised, with open consultation, a list of demands, one of which was a rent freeze. Many were about money rather than hate speech or inclusion. This was deliberate and strategic: it is quite hard to mobilise students who are mainly affluent on matters such as establishing a guarantor scheme (if your parents arent homeowners, you need to pay a large deposit to guarantee your private rental agreement; basically a tax on not being middle-class).

If you want anybody to talk to the issues that you care about, you have to rile them up, Hignett says. Loads of rich kids just dont get it, and the ones who arent rich are too ashamed to talk about it. But they understand trans rights. With cultural-issue protests, we just get more people. There were also demands to proscribe hate speech on campus, and set up a hate-speech committee, and those were, Hignett admits, bait for the rightwing press; when youre trying to pressurise an institution, the real battle is to make yourself impossible to ignore.

While Hignett and I are talking, Tim Luckhurst is outside, doing a tour for what look like parents of prospective students. I mean, everything looks desultory in the rain, but there is a sad, slightly shifty atmosphere when I walk past, as Luckhurst describes the amenities and the tour group studiously avert their eyes from all the Post-it notes that want to bin him.

The protests, which ran throughout December 2021 and January 2022, drew an unusual, even unprecedented, number of students. Durham is a lot less politically engaged than most universities, says Poppy Askham, another former editor of Palatinate. If half the things that happen at Durham happened in Manchester, theyd be protesting all the time. Kendix remembers that the first protest at South College had over 300 people. By contrast, a climate change protest would have maybe 15 people. While it was reported as fact by the Mail on Sunday that the silent majority supported Luckhurst, a student pollster colleague of Kendixs at Palatinate found that 80% of students wanted him to leave.

But never mind silent majority if there were any students at all on Luckhursts side, why were there no counterprotests, no free speech demos, no Leave Liddle Alone placards? It turns out that when DUCA and DUFMA were effectively disbanded in September 2020, and removed from the Durham students union group register, their funding was withdrawn and they were no longer allowed to use the universitys name in their title. It was a decision made by the students union, supported by the university. It was all lumped together with Durham cancelling Tories, says Kendix, who covered it for Palatinate. But it doesnt fit that narrative at all. Were talking about neo-nazism, essentially.

WhatsApp messages between key members of the groups had been leaked, and revealed a cesspit, sorry, culture where old-fashioned nazism met new, 4chan-adjacent violent misogyny, Holocaust denial and white replacement theory, to create a conversation too extreme for the student newspaper to print, and actually too extreme, mainly on racist and antisemitic grounds, for the Guardian to print, either. (A sidebar on the resilience, or perceived lack of it, in this generation: Kendix is Jewish, and had to wade through this swill. He laughs out loud when I ask him if hed requested any pastoral support; life is actually quite tough at the free speech frontier, but students, in the main, are tougher.)

In the investigation that led to DUFMA and DUCA being shut down, one of the students involved was expelled for three years, which was reduced to one year on appeal, and then overturned altogether. The Conservative MP Richard Holden celebrated the exoneration as he addressed a reformed Conservative group, the Durham University Conservative Society, saying: For too long weve seen free speech being eroded at our universities and colleges. Ill always stand up for academic freedom and against those who want to impose their unsubstantiated worldview as unquestionable fact.

These interventions from Conservatives transform Durhams rightwing outbursts from attention-seeking pranks into moments of real consequence. Each fresh event is addressed by the government as an issue of free speech, which has become elided with academic freedom; as absurd as it sounds, it is now in defence of academe that former minister Michelle Donelan sought to enshrine in law the right of any staff member or visitor to voice controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves at risk of being adversely affected. In April 2022, a motion was passed in the Commons to enable the free speech bill to pass over into the next session of parliament. Donelan yes, the same person who objected to sex-work training celebrated that, should the bill pass, universities, including their student unions, will face fines for engaging with or supporting cancel culture. What this means is that there would be an actual financial penalty for walking out of a speech by Rod Liddle, a notion that even he, I feel sure, would find hilarious.

Since the publication of God and Man at Yale, the seminal 1951 work by US conservative commentator William F Buckley Jr, the right has had the stated intent of depoliticising tertiary education. Its not a realistic goal: you cant go to any countrys epicentre of thought and reading and expect it not to take a view on politics. But underneath that is a more concrete agenda. Even in the 50s, but in a much more pronounced way now, the two factors predicting progressive leanings are youth, and being educated to degree level. For the right, tertiary education has to be presented as a site of live conflict, a vivid fight between left and right, or the gigs up.

Tim Luckhurst was temporarily barred from duties after Rod Liddles speech while an investigation took place, and those findings were kept private. A statement from the acting vice-chancellor and provost, Antony Long, insisted that the University does not intend, in any way, to exclude any speakers from our campus. Yet he also said that no member of our University community should be subjected to transphobia, homophobia, racism, classism and sexism. The university has a pretty reflexive understanding of the difference between free speech and hate speech, but the battles, amplified on the national stage, picked apart in newspapers and crowbarred into legislation, have blowback. Its salient that not one woman of colour would use her real name for this piece. Mal Lee, 25, studying for a postgraduate degree in biology, is president of the LGBT+ association and identifies as trans masculine. Lee describes a trans femme friend having projectiles and abuse hurled at her; Alisha (not her real name), 21, is biracial and was with a black friend when they were both chased down the street by men making monkey noises. Lee didnt report it because we just expect it. Alisha didnt because to be honest, Im quite exhausted. Neither thinks their assailants were other students, just passing bigots, empowered to act by a wider narrative that has made university life in Durham its emblem.

Here is the original post:
From rent strikes to free-speech walkouts how did Durham University become a frontline of the UKs culture wars? - The Guardian

The firing of Palestinian American woman, Natalie Abulhawa, has sparked a debate over free-speech, "cancel-culture" and the ever-growing crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism. The 25-year-old athletic trainer was fired by a private girls school in Bryn Mawr over years-old social media posts criticising Israel. In March the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed a federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge on behalf of Abulhawa against the Agnes Irwin School.

In its complaint CAIR alleged that Abulhawa faced discrimination on the basis of national origin and/or religion. She was vetted and hired for just a few days before school leadership fired her after showing her social media posts that had been curated by the notorious website known as Canary Mission. The website described as a "shadowy online blacklist", by the Jewish magazineForward,targetscollege students includingAbulhawa and professors and organisations thatcriticise Israel over its apartheid practices andadvocate for Palestinian rights.

Canary Mission's activities uncovered byMEMOfound that the pro-Israel grouppublishes dossiers on pro-Palestinian activists, many of whom are students, with personal details such as their photos and locations. The website is also often used by Israeli security forces to justify deporting people from Israel. This invasive activity permanently affects student activists as it exposes them to even more online harassment and may affect their future employment opportunities.In practice, theblacklistcan have a chilling effect oncritics of Israeland can have professional consequences, including firings, for those who appear on its website,as reported bythe Intercept.

Abulhawa'scase was covered in detail yesterday bythe Philadelphia Inquirer. The US daily interviewed the Palestinian-Americanas well asexperts oncivil rights. Revelations about Canary Mission's operationsin the articlesparked a wider discussion about the threat posed by the pro-Israel group to free speech and a wider discussion about the underlying hypocrisy of the moral panic over "cancel culture..Ever since cancel culture became a popular term to describe the new form of social and cultural ostracism, where individuals are de-platformed, silenced and thrown out of social or professional circles for holding views some consider to be controversial,the crackdown on pro-Palestine activism has been conveniently overlooked.

OPINION:'The world is bigger than five,' says Turkiye's UN reform campaign

Even before cancel culture became a familiar term, far-right pro-Israel groups like the Anti-Defamation League, AmericanIsraelPublicAffairs Committeeand the American Jewish Committee, not to mention Canary Mission,published reports warning of the danger posed by "pro-Palestinian" or "Arab propagandists".Theresult ofsuchcampaigns,recallsthe President of the Arab American Institute,JamesJ Zogby, wasArab Americanslike himselfdenied jobs, harassed, having speaking engagements cancelled and receiving threats of violence.

In other words,says Zogby,cancel culture is nothing newas far as pro-Palestine activists are concerned."It's been around for decades, with Arab Americans and Palestinian human rights supporters as the main victims. And now with over 30 states passing legislation criminalising support forBDS[Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions], the Departments of State and Education adopting the conflation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, the effort to silence pro-Palestinian voices is escalating."

Suchescalation and the conflation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitismhas not only empowered pro-Israel groups to demand ever-more radicalconcessions,ithas also proven to be destructive to social cohesion. Groups advocating for the codification of anti-Semitism that includes criticism of the Apartheid State ofIsraelhave been campaigning for thisover the past three decades using thedebunked theoryof "new anti-Semitism".Ourcurrent situation where there is unjustified hypersensitivity to criticism of Israel, a crackdown on free speech and real consequences to people's lives and careers, are the destructive results of this campaign.

Abulhawais one of countless victims. Her story shows that there is more at stake than the career of one individual."This particular case is going to the heart of the American fundamental right to politically dissent, to express your beliefs," Sahar Aziz, a Rutgers Law professor and author ofThe Racial Muslim: When Racism Quashes Religious Freedom, is reported saying inthe Philadelphia Inquirer."And when you belong to a group that's not afforded those beliefs at equal levels as everyone else, that's evidence of discrimination against that group but also a threat to those American values."

Azizbelieves that"the most vulnerable person in America in terms of having their civil rights denied outright or circumscribed is a Muslim Arab who defends Palestinian rights."Sheemphasised that conflating criticism of Israel with snti-Semitism does injustice to the real, pervasive threat of anti-Semitism locally, nationally and globally.Groups such as Canary Mission, claims Aziz,use accusations of anti-Semitism to silence critics of Israel's policies and practices in two ways:

"One is to prevent or eliminate anyone with views they disagree with from being in positions of influence at the micro or macro level," saidAziz. "Second is to kill any kind of debate or disagreement about Israeli state policies or practices among the public, among college students, among media, among politicians."

READ:It took just 16 minutes to learn what it means to be an American Muslim visiting Jerusalem

Flip the situation to a member of any other marginalised group speaking in support of human rights and progressive values, such as Black Lives Matter, and the illegality ofAbulhawa'stermination and its violation of her civil rights would be undebatable, Azizpointed out.

As mentioned,Abulhawa'sstory inthe Philadelphia Inquirersparked a wider debate about cancel culture. "There's no "cancel culture" that is more consistent, coherent and rooted in modern American political life than the suppression of Palestinian voices and pro-Palestinian views in US public discourse," saidWashington Postcolumnist Ishaan Tharoor.

Describing the hypocrisy of those advocating free speech while supporting the suppression of pro-Palestine voices, Tharoor added:"It has been grotesque to see, in recent years, people who built their whole careers enabling or participating in this OG "cancel culture" now position themselves as champions of free speech. You know who they are. And you know they will never admit their hypocrisy."

Tharoor's comments prompted his followers to tweet about the double-standards of people rousing moral panic over cancel culture while ignoring the state-led crackdown on critics of Israel. "We have laws in multiple states that punish people for protesting Israel and the cancel culture ppl don't care one bit," said one of his followers. "Cancel culture has always been a rallying cry for the elite and privileged scared to face consequences. Nothing to do with speech."

Reacting toAbulwaha'sstory,prominentAmerican-Jewish commentator Peter Beinart said: "Any entire conversation about'cancel culture'in America today that ignores its Palestinian victims is morally bankrupt."The complete absence of Palestinian victims and suppression of Palestinian voices clearly exposes themoral bankruptcy ofthe debate aroundcancel culture. Asis the case, Palestine exposes the limits offree-speech,the hypocrisy of selective outrage, the margins of human dignity and the boundaries of international law and human rights.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

View post:
Palestine exposes the limits of free-speech and the morally bankrupt 'cancel culture' - Middle East Monitor

When I stepped on campus at NYU four years ago, I was handed a school ID by a public safety officer. On the back, I found a list of phone numbers: who to call if I was in danger, who to call if I was sick, and . . . a bias response line? Not long after, I found posters with the same number on the back of bathroom stalls, urging students to call and report bias on campus.

Discrimination and harassment are one thing, but I found myself wondering what exactly constituted bias. Since I had watched students and professors canceled for all manner of perceived transgressions, it left me wondering what range of incidents could fall under this umbrella.

I had never heard of them before, but evidently schools across the country, from Drew University to Penn State, and the University of Missouri, have similar hotlines. Countless other colleges and universities have bias response teams, many with online reporting forms.

As a champion of free speech, I was concerned, so I dug a little deeper. Thats when I found a 2018 report on my schools hotline, which divided the calls they received into groups. Category 1 constituted alleged violations of the universitys anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies. Category 2, however, included instances determined to be biased but not a violation. Those constituted 61% of the calls made.

Some examples of Category 2 incidents included concerns that marketing materials displayed on campus do not accurately represent the Universitys diverse population or concerns about a culturally-insensitive comment. I was perplexed by the subjectivity of incidents that could unleash an administrative team on perceived transgressors.

To be clear, I do not condone harassment or discrimination under any circumstances, and I absolutely believe targeted students should have a place to turn. But they already do. As Alex Morey, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) told me, Bias response teams are unnecessary, because existing laws preventing discrimination and harassment are already in place to curb unlawful behavior on campus.

That leaves bias response teams to figure out the vague contours of acceptable speech at their own discretion. Indeed, a survey of administrators on such teams revealed an ill-defined mission that goes far beyond enforcing anti-discrimination policy. One administrator interviewed described their duty as combatting whatever threat that might [be posed] to an inclusive campus. Another said they determine when the exercise of individual rights becomes reckless and irresponsible.

These thresholds are subjective to say the least and could invite any number of complaints. After investigating 230 college bias response teams around the country, a 2017 report by FIRE uncovered a whole host of complaints that range from laughable to downright censorious.

On-campus humor publication The Koala at the University of California San Diego, for example, was defunded by the school for poking fun at campus safe spaces after bias reports (including one requesting the school stop funding the publication) were submitted. An anonymous report at Ohios John Carroll University alleged that the African-American Alliances student protest was making white students feel uncomfortable. At the University of Michigan, a so-called snow penis sculpture was reported to their bias response team.

While not all reports result in punishment or investigation, introducing the bias response tripwire into a college community surely cant be healthy for free speech. Encouraging people to report their peers for protected speech creates a climate of fear around everyday discussions, Morey said. The threat of investigations . . . too often results in students and faculty self-censoring rather than risking getting in trouble.

In a world where accidentally mixing up the names of two students of the same race or saying epithets in a class about epithets could jeopardize your reputation or your job encouraging students to call a hotline on transgressors is downright dystopian.

If we cant discuss touchy subjects and wrestle with controversial ideas on campuses, where can we? We come to college to ask the unaskable and answer the unanswerable questions of our time. Sometimes that means we might express something inartfully or, yes, sometimes offensively. But discussion, debate and resolution are the remedies to that tension. Not a hotline.

Rikki Schlott is a 22-year-old student, journalist and activist.

Go here to read the rest:
Bias hotlines at US colleges have led to a witch hunt culture on campus - New York Post