10 April: more on Frank Ellis

I've posted several times on Frank Ellis, arguing that suspension or dismissal would be proportionate responses to the criticisms made by students, lecturers and even fellow members of his department. What I've tended to argue is that the 'academic freedom' points are irrelevant: free speech is not the right to oppress others, and if he has belittled his students in a racist fashion then he should go. I've also posted up the views however of a couple of friends for whom free speech is an absolute value. What I want to do this post is put a constructive, alternative argument of where I think free speech does and does not apply.

I want to take largely as read claims I've made before, that if free speech is an absolute value then people should explain why they hold that opinion should always be free, but do not argue that action should always be free. Why is it right for individual X to say 'A should be killed', but wrong for individual Y to go ahead and kill them? And if we want to take incitement out of the picture, then what is the moral or philosophical distinction between acts of encouragement and words of encouragement? 

Or a second point: how free should free speech be? One friend tells me that he believes that all opinions should have state funding to promulgate them. All opinions should not just have the right to be heard, but should receive active state support to be heard. I've also seen the same friend stand up bravely in the face of racist aggression: so he certainly holds that wrong views should be challenged. But if hateful views are to be challenged, criticised and ostracised, then how are those views still free?

I think there is answer to these familiar quandries, or at the very least a way of restating them which clarifies what the issues are in reality. When people speak of 'free speech', they put the emphasis on the speech, whereas it's clear to me that the issue is not about speech but its prohibition: censorship and the restriction of people's right to discuss.

Placed like this, and the issue really is about the state. People support free speech because they oppose blasphemy and similar laws. People support free speech because they dislike the intrusion of the police and the courts into a space which they themselves should control. Expressed like this, much of the free speech campaign makes perfect sense to me. Thus, while I think there is such a thing as religious discrimination and religious hatred, I do oppose laws that outlaw religious discrimination (and in that sense take a different position from many of my friends). I simply don't trust the police to apply those laws in the ways that I'd like to see happen. 

That enables me also to support other race laws - such as the RRAA - because although the body charged with implementing the Commission for Racial Equality receives state funding, it has no relationship to any of the coercive apparatuses of the state. Because they need the police to apply them, blasphemy laws are objectionable in a way that most other race equality laws are not.

Coming now to the sorts of situation we're discussing (a campus movement to remove a racist, sexist and homophobic lecturer), it seems to me that the forces ranged against the lecturer take the form of a public campaign, with its roots and purposes outside the state. In response to this campaign, of course Ellis is campaigning back. I support the students because I oppose Ellis' racism. More to the point, I trust the campaign to succeed, because I believe that there are other people watching. If people tell them the truth, they will be able to judge, and broadly they will decide who is right. If enough people are persuaded, then the university will have no choice but to sanction or dismiss.

This also explains why I was so annoyed about the Guardian article I've mentioned below defending Ellis: because it deliberately misrepresented the anti-Ellis movement. 

Of course there are left-wing campaigns which try to reduce the space to organise of people like Ellis, and of course there are right-wing campaigns which attempt to force the dismissal of lecturers (for example) who support the Palestinians. But I do think that over time more of these campaigns will end up going in the right direction, because they appeal to the court of public opinion. Over time, more of the people who can explain what they are doing, and who are doing the right things, will win. I trust the process, in a way that I would never trust the police or the crown prosecution service to come up with the right answer.

I appreciate this must feel hopelessly naive, especially to people live in present-day America. It must sound like I'm saying 'we can leave you to rot, because in Europe the good guys will win'. But I really do think that a politicised campus in which students can argue about what they want to be taught and who by, will come up with better answers than a campus in which most people go along with the judgments taken by university managers. Over time, it will be fairer and freer.

If the issue isn't only free speech but also the independence of discussion from state control, then I suppose for both those who support such campaigns, and those who oppose them, the test is this: is the campaign demonstrating state-like behaviour? The state isn't just a set of people, it's also that the power those people have, including ultimately the state's monopoly of violence. Again, it may seem a narrow distinction, but I think you can use the test to distinguish between helpful and inappropriate demands of public campaigns against hate speech. For example, many of the students have been campaigning for Ellis' dismissal, but more of the lecturers have argued for his suspension pending investigation: the weakness of the former demand is that it seems more state-like. The advantage of the latter, is that it returns the emphasis to what Ellis has done. Thus while I would support either call, the latter seems better to me, far more proportionate to what we know so far.

Finally, I've been discussing all this at a level of considerable abstraction. If people are interested in more detail in why Ellis has so outraged his colleagues and students, they might be interested in some other of the articles that have been written about the issues raised by campaign: including in the Observer, and the Guardian, they should look also at the statement of his students, and the university press release setting out the reasons for his suspension. Both of the last two I've quoted below.

7 April: Frank Ellis: two notes of caution

Although I've been posting on Frank Ellis since 30 March, I've been following the story for longer than that, and did email a number of friends to see what they thought of it. As I've got a couple of pieces below arguing that the university was right to suspend him, it's only fair to quote at some length the views of some of those who disagreed with me. Here, for example, is a friend Jesse Larner - the author, incidentally, of two excellent books: one on Mount Rushmore and one on Michael Moore. 

Jesse writes: 'I guess it comes down to whether in fact he does use his university position as a platform for racist organizing, which wasn't clear from your note or the original link you sent.  That's different than just having a personal belief.  If his activities could be seen as in any way implicating the university, I think that's the line between a belief and an illegal abuse, and probably is legitimately actionable.  If Ellis boasts of never having taught a black student, and if, as the statement suggests, that's because he's made some effort to keep them out of his classes, that's clearly actionable too.'
 
'But if Ellis is just taking offered opportunities to express his personal views, outside of any University imprimatur, I personally would defend his right to do that.  Maybe it is a US attitude.  Canada, where I grew up, has European-style "hate speech" laws, but so far they've mostly been beaten back here -- and a good thing too, in my opinion.  The campus "speech codes" of the 1990s were eventually thrown out by the courts, another good thing.  I remain convinced that people should be punished for their bad actions, not for their motivations or the thoughts that are in their heads when they do bad actions.  It's hard to see how Western society can simultaneously support the right of that Danish newspaper to publish those cartoons and send David Irving to jail for his beliefs.  I think the Danish newspaper made a very important point, and also that "Holocaust denial" laws are an outrage, and probably only encourage neo-nazis in a romantic sense of persecution that helps their recruitment efforts.  As our Supreme Court has observed, speech that doesn't offend anyone doesn't need to be protected.  And I'd rather have no limits on speech than trust some institutional entity to decide what's offensive.'
 
'Of course, speech can be incitement to action, and that's the legal line.  But it seems like a clear one to me.  It's the difference between saying, "The world would be a better place if all the Jews (or blacks/ Catholics/ Asians/ gays, whatever) were dead" and saying "Let's meet at my place at 10 pm and we'll distribute weapons and go kill all the Jews in the neighborhood."'
 
Here again is Jim Holstun, the author of the superb book Ehud's Dagger, which I've mentioned elsewhere on this site.

'I would not support [call's for Ellis' dismissal] on thegrounds of his opinions alone; I would if it were a protest of his views. I'm a free speech fundamentalist. I'm aware of the counter-argument - that there should be no freedom of speech for egregiously fascist opponents of freedom of speech (which Milton tried out in his anti-popish coda to AREOPAGITICA), but it doesn't persuade me. Nor do I think it could even be defended o strategic grounds - I don't see how getting him sacked would forward anti-fascist struggle in any appreciable way.'

'I've just been the object of a similar campaign - an attack by the Buffalo
Board of Rabbis, the local chapter of the American Jewish Committee, the Jewish Center of Greater Buffalo, a campus chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and of StandWithUs (nationwide Zionist organizations), David Horowitz (FrontPage Magazine, Discover the Network, and The Professors), and the Buffalo News, on the grounds of my ostensible holocaust revisionism, anti-Semitism, and neo-Nazism (i.e., I teach courses on Palestinian literature), so I'm trying to find the principle that would enable me to defend sacking a fascist and keeping my job. I can't. Racist comments and espousal of discredited racist ideology in the classroom is a different matter, though.' I think I can answer these points, but would like to do so with care, so will take a day or two before responding.

6 April: the Ellis issues exported

A friend Evan writes from Adelaide: 'In July last year, Andrew Fraser, an Associate professor at Sydney’s Macquarie University wrote a letter to the Parramatta Sun, which suggested that Africans had sub-standard intelligence and a higher propensity for crime. Quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald, Fraser had written that "an expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems". Alongside this letter, Fraser also wrote an email to a local councillor about the "threat" that Chinese immigration posed for Australia.' 

'The Sydney Morning Herald stated that Macquarie University was "standing by [Andrew Fraser], arguing that academics must be free to say what they wish", but also distanced themselves from Fraser’s comments. However within a week it had been announced that Fraser was facing disciplinary action from the University and was eventually suspended.' 

'It was also at this time that it was publicised that Fraser had links with a neo-nazi organisation, the Patriotic Youth League (PYL), whose website recorded Fraser as a member and "a spokesman said he acted as the group’s legal advisor". Fraser acknowledged that he had had contact with the PYL, but denied he was the organisation's legal advisor. It was reported in August that "threats of violence" against the Vice-Chancellor of Macquarie University, Di Yerbury, as well as ethnic students, had been received and ‘those sending threats … identified themselves as supporters of Drew Fraser".' 

'In September, Fraser announced that Melbourne-based Deakin University’s law journal was to publish an article by him titled "Rethinking the White Australia Policy", which he claimed ‘vindicated his stand’. In the days following, Deakin University decided not to publish the article, apparently after "a lawyer for Sudanese refugees threatened a racial vilification action".'

'Part of the article was published in national newspaper The Australian, where Fraser alleged that "universalist doctrines of racial egalitarianism" had been proven wrong and that "racial realists", as he portrayed himself, "now face[d] a life or death struggle to preserve their homeland against non-white immigration into Australia". Fraser rejected the "orthodox doctrine that race is only skin deep" as an "official fiction", evoking the "folk memory" of Australia as the "homeland of a particular people of British stock with their own particular way of life". In an interview on the Australian broadcasting Corporation’s national radio programme, Counterpoint, Fraser restated his opinion that Africans had an IQ "somewhere in the neighbourhood of 70 to 75". The interviewer asked whether "anyone at the university [had] criticised the factual content" of Fraser’s claims, to which he answered "No", but gave no evidence in support of his claim.'

'Fraser announced that was an academic who taught in areas of American constitutional history and Australian immigration law, but it was the interviewer that stated, "that’s an important point - you’re actually speaking within your area of expertise", to which Fraser answered "Yes". However Vice-Chancellor Yerbury stated that if Fraser’s writings "deals with the alleged links between race and IQ, or race and propensity for violence, I am advised that the relevant expertise would at least have to include cognitive psychology, genetics and anthropology… These are not Drew Fraser’s qualifications". Fraser alleged that the controversy was not over his area of expertise, but that his public comments were "impacting adversely’ on the ‘business plan… oriented to attracting foreign students".' 

'Fraser’s article has appeared on the Internet at several websites linked with the far right. In the last few days, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission found that Fraser’s comments had breached the Racial Discrimination Act, but it is unclear what penalties will be applied to this ruling against Fraser. Fraser is playing this out as a free speech issue, who is being silenced by the politically correct liberal left, who subscribe to the "black armband" view of Australian history, as well as immigrant groups who have a "clear desire to promote their particular ethnic interests". With striking similarities to the controversy surrounding Frank Ellis in the UK, Fraser’s racist comments can be seen as a point where the ideal of free speech comes into conflict with the actual harmful nature of public racist statements, albeit described as academic debate.' More here.

5 April: more on Frank Ellis and free speech

I probably wasn't the only person to be thoroughly annoyed by Robert Segal's piece in today's Guardian defending Frank Ellis. I quote a typical passage 'The charge is not that he [Ellis] is discriminating between white and black students. No mention is made of his teaching. And no mention is made of the tainting of his scholarly publications by his views.'

Not once in two column inches does Segal anywhere quote an actual person associated with the campaign for sanctions against Ellis. Nor for that matter does he deign to quote even once from the university's statements explaining Ellis's suspension.

As someone who has been following closely, the key moment at which Ellis' dismissal changed from being a likelihood to being a probability seemed to me to be the publication of a letter in the Observer of 12 March, written by seven of Ellis' former students: 

'As former students of Frank Ellis's at Leeds University, we are well aware of his view and occasionally even had to endure crudely ill-informed and offensive comments concerning the intellectual inferiority of black people and women during seminars. These remarks not only undermined our confidence in his ability to treat us as individuals on the basis of merit, regardless of our gender or skin colour, but, in some cases, led us to doubt our own abilities and potential.'

'We are supporters of free speech, but it must be recognised that Frank Ellis enjoys a privileged position of authority and prestige as a senior lecturer which also carries significant responsibility, including a duty of care to students. In light of his extreme views, is he actually fit to serve in such a role, let alone regard students with respect and their work with objectivity and impartiality?'

'We hope that Leeds University will at last do justice to its stated values and put concern for its students first.'

In short Segal is telling a conscious lie: 'No mention is made of [Ellis'] teaching', he writes, when this has in fact been a central complaint.

As for the idea that 'no mention is made of the tainting of his scholarly publications by his views', I would urge everyone to read the actual statement from Leeds University quoted below, and in particular the sentence: 'Nor has he given us an undertaking to make it clear in public that scientific questions about the differences if any between different racial groups are questions which lie a long way from his own area of academic expertise as a lecturer in Russian and Slavonic Studies.' In other words, one of the university's three key complaints is that Ellis' views on race precisely risk a taint to his scholarly reputation.

It has always struck me as a particularly dishonest strategy to smear any public campaign not for what its supporters have said - but by means of a deliberate corruption of what the campaign has argued.

If Ellis deserves suspension, as I think he does, it is for the reason of the student complaints and for the reasons outlined in his suspension. 

30 March: Equality and Intolerance: Frank Ellis and the limits of Free Speech

'Thirdly, Dr Ellis has failed to comply with reasonable requests given to him by his employer. For example, we asked him to apologise for the distress which his remarks on race and other matters have caused to many people inside and outside the University. He has not agreed to do that. Nor has he given us an undertaking to make it clear in public that scientific questions about the differences if any between different racial groups are questions which lie a long way from his own area of academic expertise as a lecturer in Russian and Slavonic Studies. And he has failed to give us an undertaking that he will make no further public comments suggesting that one racial group is inherently inferior (or superior) to another unless there is no possibility whatsoever that anyone hearing or reading his comments might reasonably associate him with the University of Leeds. The University is clearly and publicly distancing itself from Dr Ellis’s comments on race.' I personally am glad that they took this action.