Thread by @FondOfBeetles

What I did on my Cambridge holidays #camradfem

"<general fawning over other panel members>

I'm not going to talk about clownfish, sorry.

In 1993, prominent Afrocentrist Yosef Ben-Jochannan delivered the Martin Luther King lecture at Wellesley College...

..., where he asserted that the philosophical works of Aristotle were somewhat more African than Greek in origin, specifically that they were stolen from the Library of Alexandria.

This assertion was challenged by audience member and classics scholar Mary Lefkowitz, who questioned how it was possible Aristotle pillaged ideas from the Library of Alexandria when he died long before its inception.

She asked: "How would that have been possible, when the library was not built until after his death?"

The fallout from such a simple question about historical dates beggars belief.

At the time, her question was met by hostility from Ben-Jochannan, who prevaricated by answering that dates were uncertain – (my note: perhaps, but not that uncertain) - and made it quite clear that he resented the tone of her inquiry.

After the lecture, Lefkowitz reports students approaching her directly to accuse her of racism, and of being brainwashed.

Many of her faculty colleagues, fully aware that Ben-Jochannan was factually wrong, remained silent, presumably to avoid similar accusations of racism.

Lefkowitz subsequently raised the inaccuracy at a faculty meeting, to be told "I don’t care who stole what from whom".

And finally she met with her dean, who rather astonishingly informed her that "each of us has a different but equally valid view of history".

Aristotle died in 322BC. The Library of Alexandria was instituted under the reign of Ptolemy II, between 283-246BC. Whatever the interaction between European and African philosophies around this time, it is clear that Aristotle never checked out a book from Alexandria.

It is not rational to hold a "different but equally valid view" that Aristotle could time travel into the future, and Lefkowitz was right to hold to account Ben-Jochannan for a factual inaccuracy, one clearly brought into focus by his own political lens.

Now, I am not undermining the very real problem of whitewashing in our academic and cultural lives, but rather, relating the troubling experience of a female historian who was, to put it simply, doing her job.

It is a story that will resonate with many here, if not the specifics of the incident, but the increasingly familiar and depressing tableau...

... the silencing of a female academic, by public humiliation, by threats of professional censure, by dismissal of concerns, by deliberate anti-intellectualism driven by political expedience.

At a dinner party, *self-imposed silence* due to political or social pressure forms part of our social contract with fellow humans. Like most of us, I smile and nod politely when someone is discussing their belief in ghosts. You know, we're nice, right?

In academic contexts, *externally-imposed silencing* due to political or social pressure is utterly unacceptable.

I’m with John Stuart Mill on freedom of speech.

He said that "there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered".

It is my own view that academia provides the protected space - the "safe space" - for even the most immoral of doctrines to be aired and, as importantly, to be challenged.

At least, that has always been my understanding of the term "safe space". In simple terms, people can say what they want and you aren’t allowed to punch them for it. Rather, it is encouraged that you use your grown up words instead.

However, today’s academic safe spaces now mean almost exactly the opposite. That is, a safe space is now one where students demand to be protected from the self-same grown up words that those of us here have dedicated our careers to disseminating, discussing and debating.

Students do not wish to hear our words, and so, apparently, we must not say them.

This is in fundamental opposition to the principles of academia. I cannot fathom why any institute should consider protection from academic discussion part of their duty.

Well, one reason is money. The creeping conversion of institutes to private enterprises and students to paying customers almost certainly underpins a part of this safe space switcheroo.

To discuss openly, as I often do, facts within my own area of expertise can hardly be considered immoral. Anyone would struggle to evoke Mill’s Harm Principle when a developmental biologist asserts that sex relates to reproductive role...

...specifically the anatomies associated with gamete production, the sexed bodies that those anatomies are housed in, and the behaviours that stem from those sexed bodies.

Other developmental biologists may opt for different understandings of biological sex, of course. And so we debate, to at least understand the other's position, if not a consensus.

We do not try to get each other sanctioned or sacked. To suggest that either party is doing harm against any other person or that person's rights is truly ludicrous.

The principles of sex, of its evolution, of its purpose, or as I increasingly find, its very existence, do not constitute an immoral doctrine, nor are they hatred, nor are they incitement.

Yet two months ago, I was invited by the head of my institute’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion dept to discuss an external complaint of transphobia regarding a YouTube video in which I outline the scientific evidence against inclusion of transwomen in female sports.

It is surreal that an academic biologist, discussing biology, dissecting published biology data, and using those published data to query a controversial sporting policy could find her career targetted.

I do not engage in activities called "hate speech". Like Lefkowitz challenging classical inaccuracies, I engage in activities called "doing my fucking job".

Right now, the entire public engagement section of my CV could be described as “addressing rampant anti-intellectualism in the scientific arena”.

Fortunately, my institute have been happy to permit their developmental biologists to discuss developmental biology in developmental biology conversations. Two years ago, I would have confidently predicted that outcome. Two months ago, I was far less certain.

I am proud to work for an institute who, for the moment at least, supports my academic freedom to disseminate, discuss and robustly debate issues of sex and gender. I am proud to be here at another institute willing to support females talking about their rights.

It is shameful that many institutes fail to support their female academics leading crucial debates on the physical reality of sex, on the social reality of sex and on laws pertaining to sex.

It is shameful that many institutes would tolerate, via a culture of fear, the silencing of their female academics.

It is shameful that institutes are prioritising pounds lying anywhere on the colour spectrum – and that actually is a spectrum – over the nurturing of open discourse and critical thought.

It is shameful that institutes are prioritising pounds lying anywhere on the colour spectrum – and that actually is a spectrum – over the nurturing of open discourse and critical thought.

It is shameful that an institute openly acknowledges that it has created an environment where it is unable to protect female academics from violence.

It is shameful that a female academic, putting forth opinions or statements of fact on a topic in which she is expert, even ones as simple as historical dates of death or that babies come from precisely one Mum and one Dad...

...could be subject to accusations of hate speech and criminality, left alone and vulnerable by fearful colleagues and patronised by her superiors, or even lose her job.

It was shameful when it happened to Mary Lefkowitz and it is shameful when it happens to any one of us some twenty years later.

END.