The experience of being at university used to be of a place where you can think the unthinkable and say the unsayable. Today's university is a place where you are more likely to learn what not to think and what not to say.
Recently I was asked 'Does academic freedom apply to students?' My answer was 'Yes' because academic freedom is not a complicated matter. It means saying what you think. So just do it. Speak up and say what you think. Your ideas will be criticised, sometimes harshly and unfairly. They may be shown to be illogical and despite reading and researching to defend them you may have to change your mind. Saying what you think has these consequences because everyone has the same freedom to say what they think. Whatever the consequences it is always better to put up than shut up.
This is one reason why you can't be a 'consumer' in a university no matter how much you are paying. In the free market of ideas you may get the opposite of what you wanted or something you never thought of.
An obvious rejoinder is that academic freedom is a more complicated than this as it applies to a professional role. This 'complication' simply aims at silencing students. Academic freedom is a continuum and without the freedom to say what you think the professional privilege to research ideas, not only cannot begin, but become a technical matter for professional researchers who blindly research what they are instructed to inquire into.
This is not to confuse academic freedom and freedom of speech but to claim the latter as the foundation of academic freedom. If we can't say what we think we can't judge whether our ideas or others' ideas are true. Despite this obvious truth censorship is rife on campus.
A student interested in debate will come across explicit 'no platform' bans supported by some students' unions and trade unions. The basis of these bans is that the unions think people are too vulnerable or easily influenced to hear 'racist' or 'extremist' views. They may meet members of the University and College Union (UCU) shamelessly pursuing as 'academic boycott' of Israeli academic institutions that do not condemn Israel's occupation of Palestine. They may find their tutors being threatened, suspended or sacked for being critical; sometimes for being critical of management. All this is highly symbolic of the present time and is a warning that some things must not be said and some views that must not be heard. But if students and lecturers cannot hear these views that is an attack on their right to make up their minds rather than be told what to think. The message is a general one: Be careful what you think or say!
These symbolic attacks are re-enforced by the notion that speech and ideas are sometimes so offensive and hurtful for some individuals – and is there a whiff of patronising racism and sexism here – that they must not be used. The rise in what in the US they call 'speech codes' but in the UK 'equality language' is the most public expression of this form of censorship. There are long lists in course handbooks and on university web sites of words you mustn't use in case you offend someone's feelings. They may seem innocuous but these lists make it the norm not to think or say things that others may find offensive. This is re-enforced in the classroom and lecture theatre. Do not offend by criticising anyone's views in discussion. Even lecturers worry about 'offending' students by criticising their ideas or work.
The fear of giving offence in universities that are imagined to be populated by vulnerable victims is the real threat to speaking your mind. But speaking your mind is not dead because this vulnerability is a myth. We would not be human beings if we did not want to know what others think and to engage with them in the battle of ideas. If the university is not to stifle our humanity everyone, from the fresher to the emeritus professor, must just say what they think without fear or favour.
Dennis Hayes is the founder of Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF) www.afaf.org.uk
