How many liberal academics does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one. However, a whole cadre of unqualified commentators will take it upon themselves to enlighten (pun intended) us as to why the liberal-leftie-elite-snowflake was wrong not to let a working-class electrician change it for him/her.
Why is this relevant? It isn’t but then again neither is most of what Paul Taylor writes in The Conversation. Apparently, because left-leaning academics, according to the right-wing ‘free-market’ fundamentalist ‘think tank’ The Adam Smith Institute, are overrepresented in British universities, this means that they can all be labelled as succumbing to ‘groupthink’. Twaddle. Ignoring the fact that the methodology of the report is suspect, as it only has one source, a Times Higher Education online survey published before the 2015 general election, but it also makes the egregious error of producing a table that conflates figures with another report nor does it provide counter-analysis that suggest universities SHOULD be ‘dominated by left-wingers’.
Taylor references Frank Furedi, doyen of right-wing ‘online journalist magazine’ Spiked, a right-wing ‘libertarian’ anti-environmental, contrarian, propaganda activist outlet for ‘free speech’ and leading associate of the LM Network (Living Marxism), a nest of interconnected companies who share ‘experts’ and market each other extensively, who are obsessed with the so-called limiting of free speech in universities. The Living Marxism magazine may be defunct but like most companies that go out of business, they reappeared under a different name. Funnily enough, at the same address too.
In the piece Taylor cites, Furedi begins the article with some anecdotal scare-stories of colleagues not being able to speak their mind. Two of them. One of whom conspiratorially gives him a ‘knowing look’ that is supposed to tell of keeping ‘discrete about such unpopular thoughts in an academic environment’. I wonder if Furedi understands the irony of a former Revolutionary Communist Party Founder adopting such a McCarthyite stance. He then goes on to make sweeping claims of groupthink amongst academics because one social scientist colleague stated, in shock at the Brexit result, that he ‘had never met or talked to anyone who supported Brexit.’ Are we expected to believe that every single social scientist was engaged in critical analysis or research projects in relation to Brexit? What a ridiculous notion. If the whole of the field was concentrated on one single subject, the shelves in Waterstones would be pretty boring and one-dimensional.
Furedi cites a colleague who complained about ‘the tone and content’ of an email who was told ‘people are under stress’ and insists she was silenced. Perhaps, the email may have spoken the truth? Did it ever occur to him that there was a possibility that people may have been stressed at the single most important vote and result in our lifetimes? Did this tiniest of thoughts get past the runaway hubris fuelling his disdain for what others may think?
Such issues give Furedi an opportunity roll out the anti-establishment and free-speech-activist clichés: ‘for many on the receiving end of such sentiments, it feels as if, in all but name, they have been noplatformed.’ See what he did there? One word, already infecting public discourse, thrown in to label a profession without evidence to back up the claim. But then again, so much of Furedi’s writing is evidence-free assertion.
Furedi, champion of the common man, is adamant that academia has somehow misread the nobility of the common working folk of Britain. They are not xenophobic or racist or ignorant despite what vox pops on Channel 4 testify too. Denying this exists is naïve (if I am being generous), wilfully ignorant or poor research. As Furedi provided anecdotal evidence, it is only fair that I provide parity for my claim. My wife, who is Swedish, was abused twice after the referendum. Firstly, immediately outside our flat when she had the temerity to speak in another language by one of our neighbours. Secondly, outside Finchley Road station when a man decided to take it upon himself to shout, “Get out of my fucking country and take your fucking kid with you!” at my wife and the four-year-old child she had with her. Why? Because she was speaking in a different language. This is in line with the spike in hate crime post-Brexit. But don’t let facts get in the way of ideology.
As Furedi is being distinctly unacademic, it is only fair that I should be also. As a Northerner, we have a saying for people like Furedi: what a tit. If The Conversation published Taylor’s unacademic excuse for journalism, there’s no reason why they wouldn’t publish mine, right?
Taylor, a communications professor, communicates his ‘argument’ in similar, clichéd populist-aggressive tones to Furedi, using such language as ‘anti-Brexit, pity-party’, ‘EU gravy train’, ‘diktats’, ‘labyrinthine’, ‘bureaucratic’, ‘dysfunctionality’, ‘Kafkaesque’, ‘elite’. All designed to create a negative perception in the mind of the reader and to draw them in to his, poorly reasoned, ‘argument’.
Then goes on to accuse, without a shred of evidence, universities of being ‘profoundly undemocratic, process-driven, hyper-bureaucratic institutions’ that just love the EU. Then makes an assertion that ‘academic research as the pure pursuit of knowledge has been systematically undermined in recent decades.’ Really? How so? This would be an interesting point if it wasn’t, once again, asserted without evidence.
For Taylor, the EU referendum was about the poor working class showing the elite ‘what a principled stand looks like.’ Again, without a shred of evidence to back up this claim. Reducing the Brexit vote to this clichéd ‘working-man against the elite’ narrative is profoundly unacademic, false and wilfully misleading. The reasons why people voted to leave are myriad (immigration fears, deindustrialisation, weak wage growth areas, sovereignty) but some interesting analysis has been done by Eric Kaufmann who suggests that the reasons are more cultural than economic, pointing to a values divide in society that hasn’t been seen before. More research needs to be done on this before making any sweeping judgements.
People who came to this country in good faith are scared about their future, and with good reason. Should we punish these people because they are scared? Is it wrong to empathise with people and offer them support? Is it wrong for academics to show their human side at the single most important decision this [dis]United Kingdom has taken for nearly half a century? For many, this kind of opportunity may not happen again. Are they just supposed to shut up and accept what they see as a stupid decision? Does democracy mean disengaging with the most meaningful political decision of our lives? Is this what happens every five years in a General Election? Does the Opposition just roll over and let the government tickle its belly when a decision goes the way of the government or does democracy mean challenging the nature of decisions? Whatever the answer, ‘academics’ like Paul Taylor and Frank Furedi should start acting like academics and accepting the views of others and presenting their arguments in academic terms that weigh, equally, both sides of an argument before taking a position. After all, we all have to make this work if the decision cannot be overturned. I would much rather that, when we have finally left, reason and respect will govern our relations with each other instead of what passes for discourse amongst members of the elite like Taylor and Furedi.
The Angry Academic 