The Japanese have a great word, herikutsu, which they use to refer to self-evidently lame arguments or sophistry. Its literal translation is ‘fart logic’ or ‘fart reasoning’, and there were great clouds of it billowing through the House of Commons yesterday when Matt Western MP, shadow Minister for Further Education and Universities, rose to ‘debate’ the government’s proposed Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.
The Bill, which contains a raft of measures imposing duties on universities and students’ unions to protect freedom of speech on campus (in England, anyway), is probably soon to become law; the main substantive issue still to be decided was the exact scope of Clause 4. This is a provision essentially creating a new tort in English law, whereby a claimant may sue a university or students’ union for failing to secure freedom of speech.
This, in short, would allow an employee or student at a university to receive financial compensation from the institution if they have suffered adverse effects from expressing their ideas or beliefs. Obviously, the main point of the inclusion of this tort in the Bill is deterrence, and on those grounds it’s a very good idea. No, it won’t in itself redress the imbalance between left and right on campus, but it will at least create some space in which students can be exposed to alternative viewpoints and in which both staff and students can express themselves a little more openly without fear of the consequences.
Mr. Western came up with a tissue of assertions in favour of ‘softening’ the new tort. This would essentially limit the potential damages that would have to be paid out by universities to claimants to direct pecuniary losses – for example, a refund of student fees – rather than compensation for the loss of an entire career or permanent reputational harm (i.e., the kinds of things the prospect of which really exert a chilling effect on freedom of speech on campuses).
The first of Mr. Western’s assertions was that the problem of cancel culture is “largely exaggerated”. It seems astonishing that any sensible person could make that statement in 2023 (although I am aware that the “largely exaggerated” phrase has become a bit of a shibboleth among lefties on Twitter), but it was in any case immediately contradicted by Western’s second assertion, which is that successful claims would impose a huge cost burden on HE providers unless damages were limited. It’s not happening, in other words, but dealing with it will be really expensive – an odd riff on Michael Anton’s Law of Salutary Contradiction.
The second assertion by its own lights is in any case absurd; complaining that the inclusion of the new tort in the Bill will result in large sums having to be paid out in damages by universities (up to £180,000 including legal fees per claim, apparently) is a bit like complaining that the consequences of putting one’s hand in the fire results in being burned. There is a simple way for universities to avoid having to make big payouts: secure freedom of speech. That’s the whole point of the Bill in the first place.
The third, related assertion put forward by Mr. Western was that if universities end up having to pay large sums in damages to staff or students who have been adversely affected for expressing their views, this will make for less money to be spent on improving the “student experience”. Again, it seems astonishing that any sensible person can make such a claim in 2023, when the “student experience” has become utterly denuded of genuine discussion and debate and the approach to teaching can in most cases be summarised succinctly as: “I’ll tell you what to think, and you think it.” But then, of course, one has to remember who one is dealing with: for a Labour Party shadow universities minister, the fact that universities serve up only the thinnest of woke gruel to their students is a feature, rather than a bug. That the “student experience” might be improved by giving students a slightly more varied diet simply won’t have occurred to him – universities are for making sure students have a jolly nice time while growing up to be good Labour voters. (Remember when the Labour Party thought of itself as being on the side of employees who had been wronged by their bosses?)
The first three of his assertions, then, are bunk and balderdash and various other words I could mention beginning with the letter ‘b’. The fourth assertion – that there was sensible centrist consensus in the House of Lords that Clause 4 should not be included in the Bill at all, and that the Government was being unreasonable in insisting on its inclusion – is worse in the sense that it is a deceptive half-truth.
Mr. Western was right, indeed, that there was opposition to the inclusion of the new tort in the Lords and that the general preference was for it not to have been included. But that opposition largely seems to have come from voices which – how shall I put this? – may not have been impeccably neutral. Lord Grabiner, for example, an arch-Blairite champagne socialist of caricature, who once earned £3,000 an hour advising News Corp about ethical standards, expressed concern, but then again as President of the University of Law, a large HE provider, he probably would do. And reading the debate, one is struck by how many of the speakers fall into that category – being themselves professors, university chancellors, and so on.
In this regard, Lord Moore of Etchingham made a valuable contribution that is worth quoting at length:
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the famous words of Adam Smith that no people of the same trade are ever gathered together, even for diversion or merriment, without at some point conspiring against the public. It is lovely to have so many noble Peers in this House who hold or have held high positions in universities and university administrations — chancellors, vice-chancellors, professors and all the rest of them — but overall they constitute an interest. Their interest, naturally enough, is to believe that they are right, universities are well run and the critics are wrong. I ask them perhaps to consider that none of this would have come about if universities were being well run. These freedom of speech issues are very important and need some bolstering. When so many noble Peers who are associated with universities challenge and reject that, they must be conscious not to behave like trade union leaders in the 1980s who were defending powers that, it became clear, were unacceptable.
In other words, any government seeking to do anything meaningful with regard to university reform is going to face an uphill battle against the House of Lords, because so many of them, frankly, have skin in the game. For Mr. Western to present Lords opposition to Clause 4 as being merely good, common sense, cross-party consensus was therefore almost entirely misleading. There was consensus, alright, but it would be more accurate to call it cross-sectoral within HE – and it was certainly not founded on common sense or objective reason. It was based on the good old principle that turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
The Bill will now have to go for consideration again at the House of Lords because the Government has stuck to its guns and insisted that courts must be able to award damages for non-pecuniary losses (that is, to compensate for reputational harm or a curtailed career) to a successful claimant who is suing a university or students’ union on this basis. At long last, after years of Tory politicians pussy-footing around the subject, it seems that when it comes to universities there is now a proper fight on and we have a crop of Conservative MPs who actually get it.
Busqueros is a pseudonym.
Stop Press: One of the MPs who ‘gets it’ is Miriam Cates, MP for Penistone and Stockbridge. Watch her making a speech in the House of Commons Debate on the Higher Ed Bill on Tuesday.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Man of the ppl, Dr professor vice chancellor king of the world Chris Packham, the worlds greatest scientist!
Jeez Louise, seriously, an article about Chris Packham’s choice of hat?!
If I had a pub I’d call it The Cock and Bull, and there’d naturally be a picture of a cockerel and a bull outside.
Am I the only one homing in on the fantastically named The Pecker and Bush pub?
It goes without saying that if I owned a launderette I’d call it ‘Sit&Spin’. Rude not to.
In fairness any chance to mock the man who sees himself as the heir to Attenbore has to be taken with glee. Of course the fact that this jumped up trouble causer is wearing a £500 piece of headgear only confirms that for his childish mumblings the
BBCtaxpayers are paying ridiculous money.Well personally, I can hardly wait for the next riveting installment about which aftershave Chris favours and how much it sets him back. I’d be quite intrigued to know what his skin care routine involves as well, seeing as he looks nowhere near his age. You bring the wine and I’ll bring the snacks.
It’s just unusual to see an article about Mr Packham that has the comments section open for business, to be honest. Or is it just anything that Toby writes about him where we’re not allowed to comment…?
Apologies if there are alcohol-free beer enthusiasts among our number but I am suspicious of people who drink it
Revolting stuff.
Friday night is gallon night.
I just don’t see the point
Every night is vino night chez ToF, though as I’ve said before I am
also partial to locally brewed golden
ale.
Completely off topic now there is a beach wedding going on in front of us and not only is there an army of professional photographers and cameramen provided by the resort but most of the guests are sitting there filming instead of paying attention. I find people weird!
It’s the same at concerts. An artist you have paid a fortune to see, and they are playing all your favourites, yet you are distracted by the numpties holding up their phones recording it all. Why don’t they just enjoy the experience? Do they ever actually watch what they’ve filmed? I always think they are missing out.
One of the last concerts I went to before I got too grumpy was Ben Harper. You’d think his audience would be fairly reverential but I ended up having a row with people around me who kept chatting.
I did traumatise my tastebuds by trying an alcohol-free Becks when I was pregnant and it was so vile it was grapefruit and soda from that day forth. One of the things I don’t understand about alcohol-free drinks is that they’re the same price as the real stuff. Over here it’s 17 euros for a bottle of Gordon’s gin, but it’s also 17 euros for a bottle of sugary water with flavourings that has ‘Gordon’s’ on the label. Who in their right mind is going to buy this alcohol-free version for that money when they can just buy the tonic ( or mixer of choice ) for a tiny fraction of the price and just make do with that on it’s own? It’s mental, right? A glass of lemonade would be a few cents in comparison, stick some ice and a slice in it, there’s your alcohol-free beverage! People are strange.
Anyway, I’ve never liked gin because it tastes like old ladies’ perfume, as does tonic actually.
Alcohol-free “spirits” are plain weird if you ask me. At least alcohol-free beer hydrates you.
The hat still has its security tag affixed.
He must have stolen it.
On the salary he gets from the BBC he can afford it.
Anyone who drinks an alcohol-free beer whilst wearing a stupid hat that cost £520 from Prada (but about £5.20 at Primark) is a colossal plonker.
Perhaps it’s the Primark version.
Alcohol free beer has a nasty ‘dry’ taste, its the only way I can describe it. Drinking fake alcohol is like vegans eating fake meat. Why bother, when there are tasty alternatives available, if that’s your thing.
I think it lacks taste. In fact, it’s a bit like drinking decaf coffee or tea. To me they just taste like hot water. As if somebody poured some water from the boiled kettle and went, ”There’s your coffee/tea” and you’re meant to close your eyes and imagine you’re drinking an Americano/Rington’s brew. Tastes of nothing. I’m harking back to when I was preggers though, a dim and distant memory now, as I stay well away from that sort of kack these days, of course.
Same with skimmed milk – it’s just water with a smidgen of milk added – but people kid themselves they are drinking milk. Someone’s making a profit!
He probably thought it said Pravda.
Is Truth his thing though?
Biggest take from this is How TLF-ck can a Bush Hat be £520 !!
The cost of his nylon (i.e. fossil fuel based hat) is notable.
But just remember that his hat size is certainly greater than his IQ score.
Shows how stupid he really is: £500 plus for a hat = T*at.