Thread by @fromarsetoelbow

I mentioned yesterday that feelings - in particular of hurt - have started to substitute for facts in the realm of free speech, not just on the right but in the political centre (exemplified by the Guardian). The latest news about Prof Kathleen Stock is another example of this.

https://twitter.com/fromarsetoelbow/status/1447924775301619716

Her claim that her career is effectively over because some people complained about her public statements is obviously exaggeration. Her chief critics haven't called for her to be sacked & I'm sure she'll manage a side-hustle writing for the press.
theguardian.com/education/2021…

What has been notable in the coverage is that her critics have been caricatured as both unrepresentative & intolerant. For example, the article above uses the phrase "targeted by activists" rather than "criticised by students & academics", which would be more accurate.

What's clear in this story is that first the Sussex Uni VC & then Stock herself have exaggerated at each stage. A small protest over Stock's transphobia became an "attack on academic freedom". An insistence that the uni stand up for trans inclusion became "Sack Stock".

We should be familiar with this manoeuvre: a demand for the recognition of certain rights (e.g. black lives matter) is met by a contrary, irrelevant demand (e.g. white lives matter). In Stock's case, it is the right to free speech & employment, neither of which are threatened.

It's worth contrasting this with the treatment of Prof David Miller who was recently sacked by Bristol Uni despite the claims against him of antisemitic hate-speech not being substantiated (a point the Guardian had to emphasise after first burying it).
theguardian.com/education/2021…

What seems to have mattered is that "Jewish students said they felt “unsafe and unprotected” on campus". In other words, their feelings of apprehension & fear were sufficient. These shouldn't be dismissed, but if the bar is set at feeling unsafe then Stock could also be sacked.

Free speech must be defended up to the letter of the law, so Miller shouldn't have been sacked for hurting feelings. But equally, free speech does not mean you should be free of criticism, so it is entirely acceptable for Stock's critics to accuse her of transphobia.

The real failure here is the unis. Bristol has refused to justify its action while Sussex has stoutly defended Stock. What they have in common is that they are bowing to the pressure of the press, which deems that criticism of Zionism is iffy but trans-scepticism is laudable.

This is the bottom line: the chief threat to free speech in this country does not come from lefty academics or snowflake students, let alone unregulated social media, but from a right-leaning press (amplified by TV) that has elevated feelings & opinions over facts & reporting.