I think it might be helpful to think about 3 levels - individual, institutional, and Govt - and how the relationships between them can best be managed and navigated. 2/
First, individuals. Lecturers, students, speakers etc. Those in favour of free speech should be in favour of giving them the space in which to speak freely. Of course, there will be limits as rights (inevitably) conflict. 3/
Second, institutions. Within Universities, this would be unit teams, and School, faculty, and Uni level organisations, rules, principles etc; and student union bodies at various levels. 4/
(Similar could be said re schools, Govt depts, the civil service, the BBC etc).
These institutions try to impose coherence, and can also set policies and rules. They tend to be very reluctant to limit academic freedom. They don't always capture the views of some individuals (staff and students). 5/
Third, the Govt. It too has a stake in University policy. It is (it says) keen to respect 'institutional autonomy', but it also (it says) has concerns about the way in which institutions are managing the free speech issue. 6/
Its claim is that it is acting so as to protect individuals' interests in free speech from institutions, and is calling for a Free Speech Champion (based in the Office for Students) to sanction institutions who do not protect free speech. 7/
It is difficult to see how this approach is going to work.
Free speech poses difficult problems for individuals and institutions. 8/
In general (yes, very liberal) terms, restrictions on individual freedom should require careful justification.
Decisions about the necessary compromises and choices should, as far as possible, be taken by those closest to the issues, within Schools and institutions. 9/
Govt intervention - in particular when framed in 'culture war' terms - is only likely to increase tensions. 10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm not sure if this is right, but are there (m)any Brexiters who are still calling for 'no deal' with the EU?
For better or worse, I am certainly hearing a lot less from the 'Go WTO' crowd. 1/3
Instead (at least in those brief moments when the blame game is on hold) they are calling for solutions to problems (teething or otherwise) caused by the reintroduction of barriers to trade. 2/3
In my optimistic moments, I think that there may be a slow dawning realisation that solutions involve recreating at least a functional working relationship with the EU. 3/3
'Vaccine priority' and 'vaccine nationalism'. Some hard questions. THREAD. 1/13
So far, the UK has had a successful vaccine programme. It has signed contracts which promise the delivery of many more vaccines than it needs (now over 300 million doses, I think...) 2/13
The JCVI has produced detailed advice on priority groups. There is some debate (notably within @uklabour) about whether teachers should be moved up the list; but in the main, the advice is accepted. gov.uk/government/pub… 3/13
With due caution, a short thread on the vaccines row.
It is, in my view, a huge issue and will come to dominate global politics in the year ahead. Two world views are colliding, and there is no easy resolution. 1/7
First - vaccine supply can be seen as a 'normal' commercial contract, for a good which is very much in demand. Sellers seek out buyers and together they come to mutually satisfactory agreements. 2/7
If the EU or the UK or Nigeria (or Pfizer or AstraZeneca) have got what they think is a bad deal they should blame their lawyers, or their position on the market. If they have a got a better deal than their neighbours, that is to be cheered (loudly). 3/7
An (almost certainly unnecessary) addition to the long list of slightly strained Brexit analogies, this time featuring Fred Flintstone's car. 1/6
Over many years, the EU member states built the single market, in order to remove not only tariffs and customs within Europe, but also a range of other technical barriers to trade (so-called non-tariff barriers). 2/ 6
One can imagine the trade relationship between the states as a car, with an engine, which needs careful maintenance. 3/6
I can see that 'first dose first' might be the best strategy for now. As the article suggests, it is better for cars to have one headlight, than that some have two and others none (but note, we're a LONG way away from having all cars with one headlight). 2/
The article references two dangers - vaccine resistance and trust. It also rightly says that more evidence is needed (and the studies are underway). 3/
Back to the UK. The last week has seen (at least) four interventions by political heavyweights/grandees. What they say is interesting, as is how they choose to say it. 1/6
First, Tony Blair, or rather the Tony Blair Institute. It aims to save Britain from decline. 2/6 institute.global/tony-blair/ton…
Second, Theresa May. Her theme is not dissimilar to Blair's. But the tone is rather different. 3/6 dailymail.co.uk/debate/article…