Michael Wee

Free speech at university is no longer simply about debating controversial and polarising issues; free speech itself has become a controversial and polarising topic. Are there some topics or views that academics should simply stay away from, e.g. because they are downright unethical or are products of social hype rather than serious academic reflection? Who has the right to decide what those are?

Those are some of the questions explored in a new blog article by my colleague Jana Sedlakova and me, written for the ANTITHESES project on radical moral disagreements and polarisation:

https://www.antitheses.net/issues/are-there-topics-and-views-that-academics-should-not-talk-about

Without revealing our personal views on the matter (which are not identical anyway), we have tried to give the best and most reasonable arguments on both sides of the debate, in order to bring out what is truly at stake with the question of free speech in academia–to inform, but not inflame, the debate.

Do have a read, and cast your vote at the end! We are interested in hearing from everyone. If you vote ‘yes’, i.e. you agree that there are topics academics shouldn’t discuss, you have the option of suggesting what those topics might be. You can also provide a free-text explanation of your views if you vote ‘no’, i.e. there should not be restrictions.