Dr. Kathleen Stock on the Crisis of Academic Freedom: A Talk at the Launch of the CAF

Is free speech under threat in universities? Dr. Kathleen Stock, renowned philosopher and author, delivers a talk at the launch of the Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) on February 27, 2024, at the Academy of Arts (RSA) in London. This talk delves into the complexities of the issue, going beyond simplistic explanations of left vs. right. Explore the hidden factors contributing to this crisis and discover the importance of reclaiming intellectual dissent for a vibrant and diverse academic landscape.
To learn more about CAF's activity, please visit: afcomm.org.uk/

[@undertheriverstone]

Bravo Dr. Kathleen Stock!! What an eloquent intellectual. Not only does she make an awful lot of sense but she's also very difficult to dislike. To what shameful depth have we sunk to see such person scapegoated?

[@mikalina1]

Hear hear! Just, brilliant! Thank you to the CAF and the wonderfully brave, Dr. Stock - more of the same!

[@MimCotton]

Great speech. Very best wishes to CAF - great to see this initiative.

[@TheSapphire51]

Intelligent, brave and beautifull. How utterly lacking in insight her former colleagues are and have been. The Academic Freedom Group is much needed.

[@celiabarrett2107]

So insightful. Especially about the fees. Also infantilising young adults.

[@susiegreaves7283]

"Magnificent contempt for stupide ideas". YES!!!! This is what we need so badly.

[@sarahhale-pearson533]

Watching from Tranada. Please help us.

[@sarahsnowe]

It's important to understand the reason for the capture of tertiary-ed institutions by the trans craze. Having worked at universities for 25 years, 21 of those in a teaching capacity, I know that the administrators running these places couldn't give a toss for "trans rights." What they do care about, hugely, is putting bums on seats and thereby funding their bloated salaries and gold-plated pensions; therefore, they cravenly grovel to the student population's fashionable ideologies. Having taught--or tried to teach--these kids, I can assure you that critical thinking is not their forte, and increasingly, universities are failing to inculcate the need for it.

[@OldRomanTV]

Is this group connected with Academics for Academic Freedom and if not, why not?

[@CAF_UK]

We work closely with AFAF but are separate organisations.

[@OldRomanTV]

@@CAF_UK so what’s the difference… why have you only just launched when AFAF has been around awhile…?

[@evakatz6351]

Can I ask if the Q&As were recorded? Thanks.

[@CAF_UK]

Sorry Eva, they weren't, as we would have had to ask permission from everyone to publish them.

[@carolynbrightfield8911]

There's a breakdown of social cohesion. Express my opinion on the modern points of contention, and the small social group I have left will disown me. I was silly enough to say what I thought (I'm 70+) and got told I was an "old stick in the mud" and didn't know anything. (Pity about the university biology degree) So, with who remains as acquaintances, I just stay Sturm. Old age is isolating enough. And being an elder in Australia unless you are of a certain tone.

[@socratesrocks1513]

Oh, I'm so glad to hear her say philosophy was brutal. It really was. People think it's all wishy-washy nonsense, but back in the 80's and 90's when I was at uni, if you couldn't construct a logical, rational argument, with sources for your position that proved you'd done the reading and understood the issues, you were roasted. Total eviceration leaving you an intellectual puddle on the floor was not unheard of. However, after three years of that you had either dropped the subject (very few of us. We were built of sterner stuff), or toughened up and learned how to analyse, question, research, dig through the surface nonsense and get to what was underneath. In some cases, not much. One of my profs took great delight in slicing and dicing his way through one rather well-known American philosopher whose focus seemed to be on how many fancy words he could use to say something remarkably simple. Translating it to normal English (one of over ten languages my lecturer spoke), he made it clear that this famous philosopher had added nothing whatsoever to our understanding, unless it was an object lesson in how to con academic publishers into accepting your BS simply because they couldn't understand it.

[@simgrmehmej8075]

Kathleen.. intent can be proven. There’s a landfill of evidence. Not all of the causal factors show intent: fine. It’s human-specific, not politically-left-specific: fine. Whether there is meditation on the intent within each of the actors who limited academic freedom etc., is irrelevant to the fact of intent and action.

[@nickjung7394]

One could comment on how perceptive Rowling was when she wrote the Harry Potter series. The overt threat of Voldemort and the seditious effect of Umbrage who infiltrated herself in to Hogwarts and started to undermine from within, the structure and ethics of the place. How many universities have gone the same way?

[@simgrmehmej8075]

The “No one could plot out a takeover of the institutions decades in advance!” line, often repeated, is such an annoying straw-man. A waste of breath, and if you’re being cynical (or possibly just skeptical) a great distraction from lack of substantial criticism for the idea that the institutions were inhabited by marxist ideologues with the intent to train up more Marxists (whether they meditated on WHY they were training them or not). *This doesn’t require genius conspiracy* . It required a million individual decisions by similarly operating teaching assistants, junior lecturers, admin, etc. They willed it, the ones who didn’t will it folded to it, they acted on it, they didn’t speak their minds when they didn’t want to act on it-doesnt mean they all conspired. (Speaking of being cynical, by the way: she broadly characterizes “cultural warriors” aka outspoken academics just like herself, who do correctly notice intent on the part of Marxists in universities, as grifters…) Yes, Kathleen says something very similar here-that it was human error and social incentives which allowed ideologically homogenous censorship take over-but there were Marxists and they did take positions with access to students and they did insert their training processes in where inquiry and debate was supposed to happen.