Thread by @graceelavery

I’m ready to disclose the details of the prior restraint of my research. The culprit is University College London, whose lawyers instructed the executive editor of their online journal THINK PIECES to pull my essay. The essay is linked here.

gracelavery.org/undermining-ac…

The doc was initially submitted as a pdf without footnotes—since it was to be published online, and citations would take the form of links, I used screencaps. When uploading the document to my own website, I added links myself. Here’s the original pdf.

gracelavery.org/wp-content/upl…

The piece is called, “The Gender Critical Movement Is Undermining Academic Freedom,” and adapts a lecture I gave at UCL, after an invitation from Xine Yao and Simon Lock. The lecture was well-attended, both by GCs and by queer and trans people and allies.

ucl.ac.uk/lgbtq-research…

I was keen that I have an opportunity to address *every one* of the questions that I did a follow-up event with Xine and Simon, in which they read out a long list of mostly hostile questions, and I answered each one. I can’t find that video now but hopefully someone else can.

Last year, I was approached by two commissioning editors at THINK PIECES soliciting a copy of the lecture to publish as an essay. I am not going to name those editors, because I fear they would be scapegoated for UCL’s error. The staff at TP is, as far as I can see, blameless.

In April of this year, the journal’s executive editor was contacted by the UCL legal team, and told either to request significant edits or to offer the GC scholars named a right of reply. These caveats were not passed on to me at the time—I might have gone for the right of reply.

The exec ed, understandably, did not want to do either of these things: the former, because she supported my work as is; and the latter, because she only works one day a week, and because it is not standard practice to offer a right of reply to the subject of a published essay.

To be clear, I hope that the ppl named—Alice Sullivan, Kathleen Stock, Selina Todd, and others—will reply, and if I’ve misunderstood them, I’ll correct. I’m not convinced they need to reply *in the same space as my essay,* any more than I need constant access to Mumsnet.

But there’s a bigger danger here. Much of contemporary humanities scholarship rightly depends upon exploring the connotative effects of texts—effects of which their authors may not be aware, and on which they are not authorities. We aren’t pundits and don’t want to be.

Absent meeting either of the two conditions—either of which would constitute violations of the journal’s policy, and one of which would be direct censorship— UCL’s lawyers told the Ed she could not publish. Legally, morally, and literally, UCL deployed prior restraint against me.

Now, to the supposed legal exposure itself. As I remarked yesterday, the purpose of my essay was to name specific names, to identify those scholars within the academy who are generating a new, mystified, and dangerous understanding of academic freedom.

Obviously those scholars will disagree with my assessment! And reply, and dispute, and that’s as it should be! But what happened here is that the simple act of (1) direct citation and (2) characterization of citation in terms the person quoted would dispute, triggered censorship.

That is, I think, unprecedented. The GC cases I’ve heard are Murray Blackburn McKenzie (published by Edinburgh UP), and Laura Favaro (published by THE). Both of these pieces were criticized, NOT suppressed prior to publication. The difference is significant, legally and morally.

I will recall something I mentioned yesterday: the asymmetry here is itself instructive. I name names. I quote the GCs. I use their own words. That’s how scholarship should work: debate, discussion, disputation.

When the GCs talk about trans people, they never cite us. They cite Stonewall, or use phrases like “gender ideology,” phrases that don’t have authors, and are mostly meaningless. They deploy passive sentences, describing their feelings (hard done-by; outraged) but rarely facts.

I don’t think I have any cause for action vs UCL in England, although if this happened in a public school in the US, I’d sue their pants off. First Amendment law’s clear on this, and I’ve never heard prior restraint defended either in the UK or the US.

constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/a….

Some friends who know the scene at UCL have suggested that this is a local problem, caused by UCL admin’s decision to engage in shallow culture-war posturing. Provost Rev. Prof. Michael Spence, in particular, has been rattling a saber in this direction.

Rev. Prof. Spence, who is a Catholic priest, addressed an all-parliamentary group on the importance of free speech on 03/14/21. Shortly thereafter, he apologized for claiming that Holocaust deniers would be welcome at UCL.

thejc.com/news/uk/ucl-pr…

This is a man who is apparently so confused by the meaning of the phrase “academic freedom” that he makes a sensationalist claim in parliament, immediately walks it back under pressure, and then pressures his journals to restrain those who dispute the GC line on academic freedom.

Rev. Prof. Michael Spence, who has made a career out of blundering through free speech debates he doesn’t understand, has an obligation to redress the mess that his administration has created. The GCs aren’t directly responsible for the suppression of my work. Spence is.

And if any of the GCs mentioned in my essay want to take a moment to affirm that while they don’t agree with my characterization, they support my right to characterize them in terms with which they don’t agree, that would be very welcome.

If any want to change their mind and relinquish their ridiculous campaign against trans women and students, that would be even more welcome. Until that happy day, I wish all my colleagues—even those with whom I disagree passionately—a happy weekend.