Things ain't simple. It's perfectly consistent to believe the following: 1) a government appointed free speech czar is a terrible idea & undesirable 2) many members of academia don't notice or feel any restriction on the free expression of their views 3) some members of academia
are subject to systematic campaigns of harassment because of their views, in some cases simply for stating undeniable facts (not "facts") 4) Circulating lengthy public denunciations, calling for someone to be disciplined or fired, deliberately misrepresenting what they say,
encouraging frivolous complaints or boycotts are not normal ways of conducting academic arguments and go far beyond the norms of academic free and fair exchange; 5) Some academics deny that such things take place because it suits them not to see it 6) Some are silent because
they work in a censorious environment & they reckon the cost to them of saying openly what they think and believe is too great. 6) The reactions of institutions have been variable, some have lacked backbone in standing up to attempts at authoritarian thought policing, others have
supported the rights of staff to teach & research without interference or intimidation. 7) There are bad faith actors that want to use conflict for their own purposes 8) In the real world people don't wear either a black hat or a white hat.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
