In our neoliberal world we are increasingly defining what can be said and what cannot.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
As sociologist Frank Furedi writes, there is an expectation that students “ought to be shielded from exposure to topics and texts that may make them feel uncomfortable.”
In countries such as the US, this has resulted in increasing policing of higher education to the point where a trigger warning is required for any material provided in classes or in readings that might have the potential to upset someone.
Furedi again writes: “since virtually any aspect of the human condition can be triggering, the demand for treading carefully or avoiding discussion altogether can be applied to virtually any topic” with the result that “the normal discomforts of life can now be experienced as threats to mental health.”
This kind of policing of content has opened possibilities for groups claiming any idea with which they disagree should be banned.
In the UK this is called no-platforming, a practice that allows any group to be banned from participating in a debate if their ideas are considered offensive or unacceptable. In 2006 a survey of UK university students identified that nearly two thirds of them believed those holding fascist or racist views should be subject to a no-platforming ban and argued that the national student union should not allow such positions to be expressed at any student union event or premises.
This kind of action is in contradiction to the ideals of free speech and academic freedom, both of which are traditionally considered the cornerstones of higher education. Johnson, from Universities UK has gone on record as saying: “Young people should have the resilience and confidence to challenge controversial opinions and take part in open, frank and rigorous discussions" and that legitimate debate should be encouraged. Universities, of all places, should be the places of such debates.
One of the key skills a university education is supposed to provide is the skill to take a position and explain why that position is held. In other words what is the evidence supporting that position and how does one address evidence that suggests a contrary position. In the professions we call this evidence-based practice: knowing why you chose to do what you do.
Unfortunately in our neoliberal world the skills needed to do this are increasingly not valued. Instead, students (and staff) are expected to learn the officially approved position, and be capable of justifying that position based on a careful selection of evidence.
Questioning the status quo, the accepted doctrine, positions one as a trouble-maker.
However, perhaps my concern over the role that we, as educators, have been shaped into performing is not new. Plato, in the Republic is thought to have written: “Each of these private teachers who work for pay ... inculcates nothing else than these opinions of the multitude which they opine when they are assembled and calls this knowledge wisdom.”