The battle for free speech at St Andrews University has begun. An election for Chancellor, a largely ceremonial role, could have significant implications for the university's approach to free speech and the impact of EDI (Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion) policies. With a focus on the election and its potential consequences, Mark Smith highlights the importance of this decision and the need for it to go the right way.
The election, which started today and ends on Sunday, involves four candidates with extensive experience in various fields. The winner will replace the late Ming Campbell, who held the position since 2006. Despite the ceremonial nature of the role, the election is crucial due to the current climate in universities and the impact of EDI policies on free speech.
Smith emphasizes the critical nature of the election, especially given the current state of university funding and the proliferation of contested theories on gender and race. He mentions a previous article he wrote about the significant amount spent on EDI (over £235,000 in St Andrews) compared to the negligible amount spent on protecting free speech (£0). The uncertainty surrounding the future of these policies adds to the urgency of the election.
Alumni For Free Speech (AFFS), an organization concerned about the state of universities, has taken an active role in the election. They sent questionnaires to the candidates, focusing on EDI, free speech, and other relevant issues. The responses revealed varying perspectives, with two candidates, Lord Mark Sedwill and Lady Alex Walmsley, providing detailed and encouraging answers regarding free speech.
Both candidates expressed concerns about the coercive nature of EDI and the impact of mandatory training on free speech. Lady Walmsley acknowledged the problem of self-censorship and the potential for EDI to create a threatening environment. Lord Sedwill supported the idea of institutional neutrality in universities, emphasizing the importance of dissent and free expression.
AFFS, based on the responses, recommends both candidates for their commitment to free speech. However, Smith remains concerned about the subtle ways in which free speech is undermined, beyond deplatforming. Mandatory EDI training, for instance, imposes acceptance of contested theories without allowing for debate or argument, leading to self-censorship among staff and students.
Despite the university's commitment to academic freedom and free speech, Smith argues that the culture of self-censorship is more pervasive than deplatforming. He suggests that universities should make EDI training content public, ensuring transparency and accountability. Additionally, appointing a senior figure with a focus on free speech could help address the issue and encourage open dialogue on controversial subjects.
In conclusion, the election for Chancellor at St Andrews University presents an opportunity to address the challenges of free speech and EDI policies. By supporting candidates who prioritize free speech and institutional neutrality, the university can take steps towards a more open and inclusive environment. Smith encourages former students and alumni to engage in the election, read the AFFS report, and cast their votes to make a difference.
