Greer in Cardiff Follow-Up

greer-cardiff-protesters

Since I previously posted about Greer in Cardiff, it’s worth noting that Germaine Greer did speak in Cardiff, as planned. She had said earlier that she wasn’t going to, but apparently she changed her mind.

A few notes:

1) After saying that she wasn’t going to speak about trans issues, Greer did talk about trans issues during the Q&A, repeating her usual themes (trans women aren’t really women, etc). I don’t want to debate Greer’s anti-trans views (which are appalling and wrong) in this thread; if you want to get into those issues, please bring it to the Mint Garden.

2) There were about a dozen “peaceful protesters.”

Protesters outside included present and former Cardiff University students who criticised the institution for paying Greer for the lecture. Mair Macey, a former Cardiff University student who now works for HMRC, said: “I really care about transgender people. Having Greer here reflects badly on the values of the university. There is no way she should be invited to give a distinguished lecture.”

Author Elwyn Way said: “We don’t think she should be given a platform like this and go unchallenged.” Way said trans people were suffering emotional and physical violence and needed to be protected rather than vilified.

All of those seem like very reasonable views to me.

3) According to the article, Payton Quinn, who organized both the petition to disinvite Greer, and the protest, was “frustrated that the free speech issue was overshadowing what she saw as the more salient problem: Greer’s views.” Which brings up the tactical problem with trying to no-platform a speaker like Greer: The discussion inevitably becomes one about free speech, rather than one about trans rights or Greer’s views.

I think the students were absolutely right to protest Greer. But I wish they’d taken an approach other than no-platforming.

4) As a general rule, I think that campuses should encourage people with all views to speak on campus, except for views that combine being egregiously worthless with being essentially dead and settled issues (holocaust denialists, for example). This means that many people whose views I consider terrible – anti-trans bigots, people against marriage equality, pro-lifers, climate denialists, anti-fat bigots, etc – I also think are legitimate campus speakers, because those issues, sadly, are not dead and settled.

5) But not all campus speaking engagements are the same. Organizers of the anti-Greer petition have said they wouldn’t have objected to Greer being part of a debate. But bringing in a speaker like Greer to give a paid, distinguished lecture, in which there will be no opportunity for debate, is significantly different. The University wasn’t bringing in Greer to contribute to a lively discussion of a controversial issue. They were bringing her in to honor her. This strikes me as a more legitimate thing to object to, somewhat analogous to US students protesting some commencement speakers.

6) Even though I think it’s a bad idea to ask Cardiff to cancel Greer’s appearance, it’s very obvious that people have a free speech right to do so. Greer has every right to speak, but she doesn’t have a free speech guarantee of being paid to give a distinguished lecture. But students and others unquestionably have a free speech right to ask Cardiff to take particular actions – including picking a different speaker for a distinguished annual lecture.

This entry posted in Free speech, censorship, copyright law, etc.. Bookmark the permalink. 

27 Responses to Greer in Cardiff Follow-Up

  1. 1
    redheadedfemme says:

    Somewhat off-topic; please delete if you don’t think it’s appropriate.

    This means that many people whose views I consider terrible – anti-trans bigots, people against marriage equality, pro-lifers, climate denialists, anti-fat bigots, etc – I also think are legitimate campus speakers, because those issues, sadly, are not dead and settled.

    Amp, you don’t think climate change is settled? Are you referring to the science itself, or the persistence of deniers? Although I suppose from that viewpoint, it isn’t “dead and settled.”

  2. 2
    desipis says:

    There’s something rather ironic about those “bigotry” placards:

    bigotry (noun): stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

  3. 3
    Ampersand says:

    So anytime someone protests a speaker, that means they’re being intolerant, and are therefore bigots?

  4. 4
    desipis says:

    Protests? No. However, I do think taken on a whole, the reaction of certain people towards Greer’s opinion on trans women (or anyone with a similar opinion) could be described as “stubborn and complete intolerance”.

  5. 5
    Ampersand says:

    In that case, would my attitude towards (say) Nazis – which could be described as “stubborn and complete intolerance,” at least as much as the students reaction to Greer could be described that way – mean that I am a bigot?

  6. 6
    desipis says:

    Sure?

    Whether something is good or bad is a completely different issue from whether it fits the definition of a certain word. I imagine many people would support the idea of being bigoted towards Nazis.

    If you declare something as being morally bad because it fits the definition of a particular word, and define the boundaries of that word based on your moral positions on certain issues, then your moral positions are based on little more than a circular argument.

    Your analogy also misses the point that unlike Nazis, who are the historical epitome of intolerance, Greer simply has a history of being strongly opinionated.

  7. 7
    Lirael says:

    But bringing in a speaker like Greer to give a paid, distinguished lecture, in which there will be no opportunity for debate, is significantly different. The University wasn’t bringing in Greer to contribute to a lively discussion of a controversial issue. They were bringing her in to honor her.

    I hadn’t realized that this was a paid honor. That really does affect my view, since I had previously thought she was just an ordinary speaker, and I think colleges and college groups should be able to bring in speakers in accordance with academic freedom ideals. But nobody has some kind of sacred right to be a paid honoree. It does in fact seem rather similar to commencement speaker protests, which I think are perfectly fine.

    I’m not really sure how we decide that certain ideas are “dead and settled,” and it brings the academic freedom debate into a really tricky place (not that that’s necessarily a bad thing). I think part of the issue in a lot of these debates over e.g. campus speakers is that people disagree on what issues are settled and no longer deserving of debate in respectable fora. Or that people are trying to say that certain issues (often ones involving their own humanity) should be considered settled and no longer deserving of debate in respectable fora. In addition, some communities consider certain issues settled long before others do, and it occurs to me that protest again certain bigoted speakers is saying “How can my university, my own community, be saying that my humanity and/or that of my fellow community members is not a settled issue within our university community?”

  8. 8
    Tamme says:

    Yeah, the glaring hole in Amp’s analysis is that the difference between what’s “dead and settled” and what isn’t is a very open question. A capitalist will tell you that the Marxism vs capitalism issue is “dead and settled”, a Marxist won’t. Similarly, a climate change advocate will say that the issue is “dead and settled” but a denier will say that there are still question marks.

    I’m sure we can all rally around “no need to discuss issues that are dead and settled” as an abstract concept, precisely because none of us believe that our own views fall under that moniker.

  9. 9
    Grace Annam says:

    So, in his post, Ampersand wrote

    I don’t want to debate Greer’s anti-trans views (which are appalling and wrong) in this thread; if you want to get into those issues, please bring it to the Mint Garden.

    …and then I pretty much stepped right into that territory, in a reply to desipis, and then desipis replied to me. I’ve moved my reply and his reply to The MintGarden, and I’m going to reply further there.

    Sorry, Amp. Sorry, desipis.

    Grace

  10. 10
    Ampersand says:

    Desipis:

    Whether something is good or bad is a completely different issue from whether it fits the definition of a certain word. I imagine many people would support the idea of being bigoted towards Nazis.

    Fair enough. And if that’s how we’re defining it, then I support the idea of being bigoted towards transphobes.

    That said, “bigotry” is clearly one of those English words which is used in different ways by different speakers. You use “bigotry” in a way that divorces the word from “whether something is good or bad.” But I’m pretty certain that’s not the way the protesters in the photo are using “bigotry.”

  11. 11
    redheadedfemme says:

    @Tamme

    re: “dead and settled”

    Marriage equality is the closest to being dead and settled, because of the Supreme Court decision. Scientifically, I believe you could call climate change dead and settled because of the evidence; also evolution. Of course, there are deniers of both, but their claims don’t hold up. In the case of the former, one could arguably say that giving time to deniers is not a desirable thing, because it distracts from, and delays, the urgent action the US and the world needs to be taking now.

  12. 12
    Ampersand says:

    Tamme and Lirael, I agree that which issues are “dead and settled” is subjective. Basically, it comes down to “is there a rough consensus on this issue, as far as anyone can tell?” On some issues – “is the Earth flat or round?” – I think it’s fair to say that there’s a consensus. But although there’s no objective line I can point to, that doesn’t mean it’s not something that we shouldn’t consider and take account of.

    But, basically, if a lot of people within a community are saying “this isn’t a settled issue!,” then it’s pretty reasonable to conclude that it isn’t a settled issue.

    Lireal:

    Or that people are trying to say that certain issues (often ones involving their own humanity) should be considered settled and no longer deserving of debate in respectable fora.

    People are definitely saying this, I agree.

    But – just imo – just because an issue should be settled doesn’t mean it is settled. There’s no way to reach, say, a consensus that anti-fat bigotry is wrong, other than having the discussions. I’d personally prefer that we were already in a place where this matter wasn’t controversial, but we’re not. And if a campus fat acceptance group tried to no-platform Nicole Arbour, I’d certainly have a lot of sympathy for that choice, but I think that it would be a mistake. Because it would have the effect of diverting the conversations that need to happen for fat acceptance to be more accepted, into conversations about free speech.

    In addition, some communities consider certain issues settled long before others do, and it occurs to me that protest again certain bigoted speakers is saying “How can my university, my own community, be saying that my humanity and/or that of my fellow community members is not a settled issue within our university community?”

    Yes, this is a lot of what’s happening, I think.

  13. 13
    LTL FTC says:

    2) There were about a dozen “peaceful protesters.”

    That’s a greater than 10-1 ratio of Alas comments on the first post to people who actually showed up to protest. That must be some sort of record.

    One of these days, administrators will learn to separate the local constituency for these no-platform actions from the tornado of me-too outrage. Like actual tornadoes, it doesn’t stay in one place for very long.

  14. 14
    Ben Lehman says:

    I really feel like you’re hiding a great deal in “dead and settled” as a universal measure (even universal within one culture.) Holocaust denial only seems “dead and settled” because in the US and Europe, at this particular moment, it’s taboo, with a big leg up from censorship laws in Europe. But it’s increasingly popular in the rest of the world. [1]

    So, if an Indian academic is being invited to the US and like many of their countrymen indulges in some degree of holocaust denialism, should they be denied a platform because, to us, the issue is dead and settled? Do we make a cultural exception for them? Do we ask / advise them not to speak about this topic? Do we try to take this as an opportunity to explain that pro-Naziism in India and SE Asia has a very different political history and meaning?

    “Dead and settled” hides a lot.

    yrs–
    –Ben

    [1] Note that, unlike the linked article, I don’t find anything wrong with roughly half of the world’s population having never heard of the Holocaust. For instance most Chinese people, for instance, rightly focus on the mass murder, rape, human testing, and industrialized slaughter that was done to them, and their ancestors, which most Americans remain wholly unaware of, to the point of active disinformation about how the Japanese were “not as bad” as the Germans. We’re all parochial, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The history of atrocity, even just in the 20th century, is too large and too wide for a single lifetime.

  15. 15
    desipis says:

    “Dead and settled” hides a lot.

    It also ignores the fact that every year another batch of ignorant fools joins society and that we need to give them the space to learn how to distinguish between good and bad ideas for themselves, such that they might be less ignorant and foolish. Some things, particularly issues of morality, will never be “dead and settled”.

    But although there’s no objective line I can point to, that doesn’t mean it’s not something that we shouldn’t consider and take account of.

    I think the objective measure is whether there is the critical mass of people interested in discussing the topic required for such discussions to take place. If people are making the arguments then they are ipso facto not “dead and settled”.

    Claiming that something ought to be “dead and settled” is the sign of someone who is arrogantly believes they are above the epistemological burden of convincing their fellow humans with rational argument.

  16. 16
    Ben Lehman says:

    For context: I think it’s perfectly reasonable for colleges and universities to want to curate speakers. I don’t think that higher education benefits from being 4chan (i.e. everyone, no matter how ignorant or hateful, gets exactly the same platform). Academia benefits when the knowledgeable and thoughtful get a better platform to speak.

    But I don’t think “dead and settled” is a good standard. Probably something more like “in the context of, but not according to, the taboos of their society.”

  17. 17
    Tamme says:

    “Marriage equality is the closest to being dead and settled, because of the Supreme Court decision.”

    Just because the law is clear, doesn’t mean the moral issue is settled. Conversely, it’s clear that prostitution is illegal (outside Nevada) but you wouldn’t call the debate about the morality of prostitution ‘dead and settled’ (I presume!).

    And it has to be said that this is an extremely Americocentric approach. This has been further expanded upon, but I found it quite breathtaking, not least because the original context of this discussion was an Australian speaking at a British university.

    “Scientifically, I believe you could call climate change dead and settled because of the evidence”

    Amp specifically mentioned climate change deniers as the sorts of groups who should be permitted to speak.

    “But, basically, if a lot of people within a community are saying “this isn’t a settled issue!,” then it’s pretty reasonable to conclude that it isn’t a settled issue.”

    Define ‘a lot’? It strikes me that there are ‘a lot’ of Holocaust deniers. Certainly not a majority or even close to approaching one, but it’s not hard to find one if you go looking.

    Of course if you’re looking at people who actually have some specialised knowledge of the subject it’s a different matter – there are no academic historians who are Holocaust deniers. But you avoided, I can only imagine deliberately, any talk of qualifications in your definition of what counts as “dead and settled”.

    Climate change is an instructive comparison, while there is a lot of popular disagreement with the idea that climate change exists, within the climatological community it’s a tiny minority (although I will admit that they exist, unlike Holocaust-denying historians)

  18. 18
    JutGory says:

    Ampersand @5:

    In that case, would my attitude towards (say) Nazis – which could be described as “stubborn and complete intolerance,” at least as much as the students reaction to Greer could be described that way – mean that I am a bigot?

    Ampersand @10:

    You use “bigotry” in a way that divorces the word from “whether something is good or bad.”

    Maybe bigotry is not the right word. Close-minded or intolerant may be better. Even childish.

    Maybe it is me, but I can’t think of too many things that get me worked up. I can’t think of many topics that would be off limits. A friend gave me one of those 9-11 Truther videos (I think it was Spare Change); I did not watch it because I was not interested. I watched a Moon Landing Hoax program on the History Channel; interesting arguments, but ultimately not persuasive. And I have even heard some Holocaust denial arguments that sound interesting, but miss the point (something like Census records show that Hitler only killed 2 Million Jews, as if there is a magic number that would make it a Holocaust), and others that just don’t seem to have any touch with reality (I think someone on this blog mentioned that people claimed Auschwitz was a private resort with a swimming pool, or something crazy).

    So, I really don’t have a problem with people talking about all kinds of goofy stuff that I disagree with. But, yeah, if my school wanted to bring in a flat-earther to explain the theory, I probably would not go (unless it were some historical presentation), and I might question the administration’s academic judgment about useful lecture topics, but I can’t see myself demanding that an invitation be retracted.

    -Jut

  19. 19
    Lee1 says:

    @JutGory 18

    Just out of curiosity, were you directly personally affected by any of the views expressed in the examples you give?

  20. 20
    Max G. says:

    “paid honor”

    76-year old world-famous writers and thinkers generally don’t fly half-way around the world on their own dime to talk to college students. As a rule, a person who will show up and talk “for free” is a corporate shill.

  21. 21
    Ampersand says:

    This wasn’t just a paid appearance on campus, it was the Hadyn Ellis Distinguished Lecture, which is given only once each year, each time by a different speaker. The speakers are always people of great accomplishment, and seem to be drawn from a great variety of fields.

    So yes, I think it’s fair to say that being the year’s Hadyn Ellis Distinguished Lecturer is an honor, not just a typical campus appearance.

  22. 22
    JutGory says:

    Lee1,
    I am not sure I understand your question. However, for the record:

    I am not a holocaust survivor (or victim, for that matter).

    I have never been to the moon (and was born after the first moon landing).

    I distinctly remember 9-11, but do not live in either New York City or D.C.

    I do live on Earth.

    -Jut

  23. 23
    desipis says:

    So yes, I think it’s fair to say that being the year’s Hadyn Ellis Distinguished Lecturer is an honor, not just a typical campus appearance.

    I think there’s an important point I saw made a discussion about the whole removing any acknowledgement of Woodrow Wilson from Princeton. We don’t honour people because we believe they are perfect, flawless, human beings. We honour them because they have achieved great things. If we refused to honour people who are flawed then we wouldn’t have anyone to honour at all.

  24. 24
    Ampersand says:

    Eh. Woodrow Wilson already has a permanent, and very rare, honor – he is one of the relatively tiny number of people to have been President. No one is removing that acknowledgement. I’m not going to weep for him if his name is removed from a few buildings, as protesters at Princeton have asked. Similarly, Greer’s historical place can never be (and should never be) removed from the history of feminism. And their more important legacies – in Wilson’s case, Princeton’s elevation into an excellent university, in Greer’s case, her positive contributions to feminism – live on regardless of whether their names are on buildings or whatnot.

    But the fact is, there are thousands of speakers at colleges every year whose presence doesn’t lead to protests. There are thousands of buildings and statues which do not lead to significant protests. There are – to bring in The World Fantasy Award, which I’ve seen similar arguments about – many, many ways of designing awards other than the face of H.P. Lovecraft, which will not cause significant protest.

    It’s surely true that there are no humans without flaws. But that doesn’t mean that there’s no one better to invite to give the HEDL, to name a building after, or to model the World Fantasy Award after.[*]

    [*] Actually, it seems likely that the World Fantasy Award will, like the Hugo and the Nebula, change to a design which isn’t modeled after a person at all.

  25. 25
    Tamme says:

    ” If we refused to honour people who are flawed then we wouldn’t have anyone to honour at all.”

    Everybody is flawed. Not everybody is transphobic.

  26. 26
    Sebastian H says:

    “Everybody is flawed. Not everybody is transphobic.”

    That is a weird argument. Not everyone is a communist either, and so far as I can tell communism has done a lot more damage than transphobia.

    Not everyone is a Christian, and so far as I can tell Christianity has claim to a lot more damage than transphobia.

  27. 27
    Mookie says:

    People are allowed to prioritize based on their own needs and set thresholds beyond which they disengage or write off an interlocutor as not worth the effort. Not only are we all allowed to do so, but this is pretty common, rather rational behavior; the oppression we experience first-hand generally feels the most potent and tangible to us. Practicing intersectionality is not incompatible with protecting onesself. Doing so doesn’t prevent the plaintive Dear Communistas that follow, of course, but the Dear Communistas are strawmen. This is not a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

    Transphobia can be a dealbreaker, and that’s okay. There’s nothing logically inconsistent about it. Nobody has to accept transphobia because Christian terrorists exist.