Activism Vs. Education

Patrick Keeney
December 9, 2016
The University of Chicago’s English Department recently announced it is only accepting new graduate students if they intend to “work in or with” Black Studies. Patrick Keeney’s review of Unsafe Space: The Crisis of Free Speech on Campus charts how political correctness is eroding the university mission of methodical discovery and the teaching of truths.

Activism Vs. Education

Patrick Keeney
December 9, 2016
The University of Chicago’s English Department recently announced it is only accepting new graduate students if they intend to “work in or with” Black Studies. Patrick Keeney’s review of Unsafe Space: The Crisis of Free Speech on Campus charts how political correctness is eroding the university mission of methodical discovery and the teaching of truths.
Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter

Unsafe Space: The Crisis of Free Speech on Campus.

Edited by Tom Slater

134 pp: Palgrave MacMillan, 2016

Reviewed by Patrick Keeney

There are two threats to reason, the opinion that one knows the truth about the most important things and the opinion that there is no truth about them.   – Allan Bloom

Tom Slater, deputy editor of the British libertarian web journal, has assembled a wide-ranging collection of essays documenting the erosion of free speech in universities in the United States and the United Kingdom. Slater and eight other contributors paint a bleak picture arising from a witches’ brew of identity politics, an intellectually enervating relativism, and a militant intolerance for opposing points of view.

In chapter after chapter, we hear of students and professors who shut down debate, suppressing all dissent with a fierceness that would make Torquemada proud. How did we arrive at such a state of affairs, where free speech and academic freedom – the university’s foundational intellectual virtues – have become so degraded?

The eminent scholar Edward Shils once defined the distinctive mission of the university as the “methodical discovery and teaching of truths about serious matters.” Yet the concept of truth as an epistemological category hardly exists in today’s academy. Various waves of radical relativists, post-modernists, feminists, and critical theorists have worked diligently to dispose of the notion that there is any truth, or, if there is, that we are capable of grasping it.

In recent years, the truth-deniers have allied on campus with various groups of social justice warriors who, ironically, imagine they have a monopoly on truth. Agitating in the name of identity politics, they seek to curtail freedom, and impose on the university a conformity of thought justified in their eyes by the righteousness of their cause.  Advocates for social justice are diverse – and proud of it! – but they collectively subscribe to a militant fanaticism which brooks no dissent. Like true believers of all stripes, they are absolutists to the core.

We are thus witnessing something of a perfect storm in the academy: an enforced conformity in the name of social justice, along with a denial of empirical truth. This has brought about something new and hazardous to the educative mission of universities. Pascal’s view that “We know too much to be skeptics, and too little to be dogmatists” has been turned on its head: the message to students today is that they can be simultaneously skeptical of the truth and dogmatic in their beliefs.

One of the insights which emerges from this collection is how academics have been complicit in undermining academic freedoms. Joanna Williams of the University of Kent (and Spiked education editor) points out that the attempt by students to turn the university into an emotional and intellectual safe space represents the fruition of ideas they were originally taught by their professors. “Academics”, she writes, “have taught and legitimized the notion that words and images harm, that people should be protected from offence, and that restricting free speech is the best way to achieve that aim.” The current demand for safe spaces, trigger warnings, and speech codes of all types is nothing more than students “putting into practice the ideas of their lecturers.” And while universities have never lacked enemies in the wider society, “this attack on academic freedom came not from outside the university but from within, and not from the political right, but from the political left.” In other words, the revolution is devouring its own.


Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked and contributor to The Spectator among other publications, argues that until very recent years, universities were liberal institutions, guided by the Enlightenment ideal of creating a society of morally autonomous, self-directing individuals. Kant famously sums up the Enlightenment orientation to knowledge in three words: “Dare to know,” which requires from students a certain mental robustness. But such intellectual rigour, O’Neill writes, has been replaced by “the sanctification of fragility.” Ideas, literature and art which challenge students’ presuppositions and biases are now treated as “inherently harmful.” Instead of providing students with the intellectual tools, disciplined modes of enquiry, and mental attitudes necessary for agency and self-direction, universities have created “vast new industries of Guardians, who are determined to protect [students] from harmful speech, hurtful people, interpersonal relationships, and life in general.” The university’s mandate now includes protecting the emotional well-being of students. In short, universities have adopted a therapeutic model of education.  For O’Neill, “…we’re seeing the corrosion of Enlightenment values, of Western societies’ abandonment of the ideals of autonomy and subjectivity upon which university life, and democratic life, have been based in the modern period.”

New Yorker Nancy McDermott, another Spiked contributor, writes about the deleterious effects of feminism on free speech. She points out that if we accept the fragility of students, then exempting them from any potentially traumatic classes by issuing “trigger warnings make perfect sense. But they also make educating students very difficult.” Given that the criteria for issuing trigger warnings is merely the potential to cause discomfort or give offence, then it is difficult to conceive of any sort of meaningful curriculum which doesn’t contain such potential.  At a minimum, such a highly politicized, parochial environment distorts the educative mission of the university.

Peter Wood, president of the American National Association of Scholars, which advocates for academic freedom, addresses climate change and the “Eco-orthodoxy on Campus.” He documents the toxic effects of climate activism, “which so eagerly embraces tactics of silence and exclusion.” He cites the case of Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish scholar who accepts that man-made climate change is real, but balks at the more extreme of the alarmist forecasts, arguing that such alarmism diverts attention and precious resources away from more manageable and immediate environmental problems. But for questioning the standard orthodoxies, Lomborg has become a heretic in what Wood calls “The Established Church of Climate Catastrophe.” He has been hounded and denounced with the same passion and venom that religious communities summon to shun apostates. For Wood, the climate change debate illustrates a transformation in Anglo-American societies, from an ethic of emotional continence and self-control, to an ethic of histrionic emotional display: “And the emotion that gets the greatest license in this shift is anger, which feels to the person expressing it empowering, righteous and authentic.”

University of Kent sociologist Frank Furedi zeros in on what society risks by restricting the freedom of professors and students. “Intellectual and scientific progress requires a culture that is disposed to open debate and the spirit of experimentation,” he writes. “The freedom to think, talk, teach and research fosters a climate that encourages the realization of the human potential.” As Furedi reminds us, the search for truth requires fearless individual risk-takers who will pursue it regardless of “wherever it may lead and whoever it might offend.” Any serious university must affirm academic freedom as a “non-negotiable value that underpins the genuine pursuit of intellectual and scientific clarity.”

In the concluding chapter, Tom Slater offers eight practical strategies for making universities “un-safe” spaces, all of which seek to return to the university the notion of open and free enquiry. Among his observations are that, “You come to university to debate and to learn, not to be told how to behave”, and “The debate is never over.”

Quite right. The debate truly is never over, provided only that we are permitted the freedom to engage in the debate. But for as long as we have had institutions dedicated to the pursuit of the truth, we have also had fanatics determined to shut down debate. Slater and his co-contributors are to be commended for reinvigorating a crucial debate about freedom on campus, one with consequences which extend far beyond the groves of academe. Taken together, these essays remind us what a university is for, and how critical it is to maintaining an open and truly liberal society.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Thirteen Things That Can’t Be Said About Aboriginal Law And Policy In Canada

How do you make new laws and policies or reform old ones in a democracy? You talk openly about every aspect, carefully consider the pros and cons and the long-term implications, and strive to come up with solutions that are fair to everyone. That has been the ideal, anyway, in Canada since Confederation. So what happens when vast areas of law and policy cannot even be discussed any longer? Bruce Pardy lists the things that have become perilous to say regarding Indigenous issues – but that need to be said if Canada is to maintain a legal system that is fair to all Canadians.

Democratic socialism is the new communism, but what does that mean for the people old enough to remember living under communism?

New Communism, Old Fears

Supporting or working to bring about “democratic” socialism has become an alluring option for ever-more voters across North America. It is ascending on clouds of virtuous intentions, high hopes and utopian goals, backed by elaborate theories, with good doses of anger and envy adding punch. Yet it has all been tried before – and failed calamitously, an unmitigated horror ending in ruination. Luckily, people who have personally lived through it are still around to tell the tale. Through the eyes of one survivor of Eastern European communism, Doug Firby issues a stark reminder of what real oppression looks like and a plea to younger Canadians to resist the seductive call of socialism.

What would have happened if Canada rejected "coronapsychosis"?

Rejecting “Coronapsychosis” Could Be Good for Our Health

It will remain forever unknowable how Canada would have fared had our country not largely aped the “lockdown” model adopted by most of the advanced countries. But there is meaningful evidence for those who care and dare to look – and the implications aren’t pretty for our public health officials and their political acolytes. Brian Giesbrecht examined an obscure, far-off country run by an eccentric old man who decided to do the pandemic his own way – and may well have saved not only his nation’s economy but hundreds of his compatriots as well.

More from this author

A mustang driving down the open road is the epitome of the freedom felt when driving.

Why the Freedom of Driving Still Matters

Most of us have heard it said that a lot of science and engineering went into bringing you the automobile gleaming beneath your gaze in the showroom. A lot goes into the act of driving as well. And while many people no doubt find driving banal or worse, Patrick Keeney believes there’s also a lot at stake. To drive, he writes, is to exercise our skill at being free, to display our competence, to accelerate for the sheer joy of it, and to negate the technocrats who strive to make our lives idiot-proof and safe. To steer our very lives, as it were. To Keeney and the author of the book he reviews in this essay, few places are better than behind the wheel, breathing the heady air of freedom.

Can Liberalism Survive the Coronavirus Era?

Covid-19 poses a grave threat to many things: nursing homes, music festivals and café culture among them. But what of its broader implications? The coronavirus cares nothing for identity, imaginative individual rights or past grievances. It is severely undermining globalist fantasies. And recovering from its ravages seems likely to reward countries that focus on conservative values of pragmatism, frugality, duty, markets and tradition. Patrick Keeney charts the likely fortunes of conservative and liberal convictions once the pandemic recedes.

Thailand Diary: Living Joyfully in a Time of Disease

Canadians have been hectored into essentially hunkering down in their homes. Nearly all of us at least have a home. But what if you found yourself halfway around the world, with nowhere to live, the situation changing almost hourly, and lacking even the legal rights of a local citizen? Patrick Keeney not only maintained his equanimity but found time on the fly to explain how one man adapted to the life of an expatriate vagabond. Keeney shares his observations about the pandemic’s impact on a vulnerable culture and shows us all how, amidst the many exigencies, it’s possible to continuing finding joy.

Share This Story

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.