Let’s all be in denial about ‘in denial’

Tuesday October 25, 2011

‘In denial’ is just the latest therapeutic term being used to attack free speech and academic freedom, argues Dennis Hayes

Professor Malcolm Grant, provost of University College London (UCL), has often been criticised by Lord Carlile, lawyer and former independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, for being ‘weak’ in his approach to campus ‘extremism.’

Carlile’s latest anti-Grant outburst declares: “He’s plainly in denial. I’m not saying that universities are hotbeds of extremism. However, there is no doubt that it has existed and still exists, not least in his own university” (Evening Standard 13th October 2011).

Unlike Carlile, Grant showed that he understands what universities are for when he lucidly argued that “views expressed within universities…may sometimes appear to be extreme or even offensive. However, unless views can be expressed they cannot be answered.” Grant has always been ‘hard’ in his unswerving defence of academic freedom. In 2006, for example, he criticised the motion passed by the lecturer’s union NATFHE to call on individuals to boycott Israeli academic institutions: “I find it extraordinary that any academic union should attack academic freedom in this way. An academic boycott for political ends is in direct conflict with the mission of a university, and betrays a misunderstanding of our function” (Financial Times 1 June 2006).

His uncompromising intellectual toughness about academic freedom has consistently put to shame the old left, the right and the righteous who would willingly sacrifice the university to political ends.

The trouble with those who want the university to be a social engineering tool is that they unwittingly and ignorantly undermine the very essence of the university and, ironically, their own ends. If the university does not allow extreme or offensive views to be expressed, the same views will be reinforced by giving them credibility through proscription, allowing those who hold them to claim the moral high ground as defenders of academic freedom and free speech.

Defending academic freedom and free speech is yet another way for these groups to avoid debate about their ideas. Anyone working in a university today knows that ‘extremists,’ who we should really see as young evangelicals, would rather not debate but inhabit a netherworld where their ideas and ambitions are protected from criticism by politically correct diversity policies.

So instead of shying away from conflict and ‘offence’, more discussion and debate are what is needed. If anyone has any doubts that this would stop more individuals like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the crazed ‘underpants’ bomber (who was a student at UCL), consider one killer fact. There are over 167,000 Muslims studying in UK universities. We don’t have 167,000 potential underpants bombers, just normal young people studying and learning to think and be critical. The reason is that universities are still places where free speech is the norm. The odd few who may have ‘extreme’ views mostly take shelter in silence and need to be engaged in debate.

That’s the opposite of Carlile’s approach and he should reflect on the fact that ‘extremists’ can learn from his comments about ‘denial.’ The charge of being ‘in denial’ isn’t just a clever turn of phrase but a new approach to censorship. Carlile knows what is true and beyond question, and if you do not agree you are ‘in denial.’ Being ‘in denial’ means you need treatment or help rather than debate. Although there have been laws passed in some countries to ban ‘holocaust denial’ rather than to rebut the deniers, it was quasi-religious environmental activists that really encouraged this new therapeutic approach by talking about ‘climate change denial.’ Now everyone who won’t argue or have their views challenged talks about people, even whole countries, such as Greece, being ‘in denial.’

It won’t take long for Carlile’s ‘extremists’ to make this move and charge those who want to argue with them with being ‘in denial’ about the true interpretation of Islam. What those who hold strong views forget is that truth is not defended by silencing opposition in authoritarian or therapeutic ways. If something is true it will be made stronger not weaker by intellectual challenge. As Mill comments in On Liberty the great benefit to the believer will be ‘the clear perception and livelier impression of the truth, produced by its collision with errors.’

The increasing adoption of therapeutic talk in universities and colleges, whether about ‘homophobia’ and ‘Islamophobia’ or of ‘respecting’ rather than offending by criticising beliefs, is a dangerous trend that leads to counselling and safe spaces in which emotions can be explored rather than to open debate and discussion. That’s not the function of a university but these approaches are on the rise, and as they rise debate declines. It’s time for all academics and students to be in denial about ‘in denial.’

Dennis Hayes is the Director of Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF). The AFAF statement of academic freedom can be supported here