Thread by @robfordmancs

There is more I want to say on this topic when I have time (a theme I will return to shortly) but I want to say that I *profoundly* disagree with this kind of "unless you're shouting about it on Twitter, you condone it" argument, which is both illiberal and counterproductive

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1447531840928206848

Firstly, it is patently absurd to claim that you are a proponent of academic freedom while also saying "unless you loudly support this behaviour/campaign/opinion/judgement, you are the enemy". The whole *point* of academic freedom is freedom to *disagree*.

Secondly, there are a whole host of legitimate reasons why academics, with or without "public profiles" might want to refrain from engaging in a particular controversy. Matt, typically, treats the situation as a simplistic black & white morality play. It usually is not.

Reason 1: Information - most academic freedom controversies are complex and polarised, often with incomplete information and a lot of bad faith arguments. Taking an informed stand in such situations is difficult. It should not be a snap judgement.

Reason 2: Trolling - those taking strong stands in polarised debates invite abuse, bad faith misrepresentation etc. Dealing with that is tiring, tiresome and for many emotionally costly. Not everyone wants to do that.

Reason 3: Time - most academics are overloaded. Many have heavy teaching loads, marking loads, research demands, not to mention caring responsibilities, the demands of family etc. Most simply do not have time to engage with all controversies - that doesn't imply a tacit stance

These three also interact. The prevalence of bad faith and trolling on polarised issues makes it more important to get good information, but more difficult to do so. That means a greater investment of time for those whose intellectual conscience requires judging with care

This is not an exhaustive list (time constraints again!) but I hope an illustrative one. Many academics take great care before making judgements about anything, and are therefore circumspect when faced with heated debates over issues with limited info. We should not condemn that

Quite the opposite. That kind of behaviour is the best of academia. The impulse to say "I don't know", the impulse to learn more before judging, is one of the best and most important impulses in academic culture.The impulse to surf the mob and issue snap judgements is not.

Academic freedom isn't just freedom to say loudly "I think this". It is freedom to say quietly "I don't know" To say "I don't trust this claim." To say "its complicated." To say "I need to think more". I don't want to work in an academy where such impulses are stigmatised.