Your leader on academic freedom (The theory of natural law must not lead to the practice of discrimination, 15 January) concludes that Oxford University law faculty should reconsider invitations to Professor Finnis to conduct seminars because he expressed “homophobic” views in a lecture – a lecture given as long ago as 1994. Such a reconsideration would have disturbing implications for academic freedom, which at its heart protects the freedom of university scholars to put forward seriously held opinions without fear that exercise of the freedom would jeopardise their position.
John Finnis is an exceptionally distinguished scholar who has revived natural law thinking in recent decades. His views on gay sex are certainly unfashionable and many people, as your leader says, find them “weird”. But Finnis defends his position with intellectual argument, which should be challenged by those who find it offensive, not simply dismissed as “absurd”. Further, it is too simple to characterise his views as “profoundly homophobic”, just as it would be to label strong criticism of religious belief or practice as an expression of religious hatred. Finally, there is, as the leader admits, no suggestion that Finnis has engaged in any discriminatory practice against gays by, for example, refusing to teach them or write references for them. So the implication of your headline is perhaps a little misleading.
Eric Barendt
Emeritus professor of law, UCL
• I was puzzled by your editorial. You started with the standard liberal position, that people must be allowed to express their views even if the rest of us think they are wrong or even morally unacceptable, with which I quite agree. You followed up by pointing out that Professor Finnis has not actually been guilty of “acts of discrimination”. If he had been, of course, that would almost certainly require some action by his employers, but as he hasn’t, why would it? Then you end up by saying the university “should reconsider his invitations to its seminars”, neatly contradicting everything you said up to that point. As I say, puzzling. And also worrying, since the question of to what extent the freedom of speech should protect wrong-headed views is one we need clear answers to. Incidentally, your characterisation of Professor Finnis’s views as “weird” when he is expressing an extreme version of classic Catholic theology is a bit weird in its own right, I think.
Jeremy Cushing
Exeter
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition
