Bloc-notes

#IStandWithKathleenStock: Fear and Freedom of Expression

Like many colleagues last week, I followed the news of the harassment campaign against Kathleen Stock from a distance and with trepidation.

What frightened me was three-fold. First, I was taken aback by the hatefulness of the campaign: the manner in which Stock was characterised, the vulgarity of the verbal abuse directed against her, the utter lack of respect and courtesy for her as a teacher and a colleague, and the lack of empathy for her personhood. The effect (and perhaps the intention) of so much of what I read was to dehumanise Kathleen Stock - to portray her as a deviant other, a vessel of evil to be banished from the moral community of human fellowship.  Second, I was consternated by the lack of substantive argument advanced by the campaign. It seems that thousands of voices rumbled to affirm that Stock was not only wrong, but wrong in a manner that so deviated from the norm that she must be punished. However, so few of these voices took the time to articulate why Stock was wrong and why the prescribed punishment (professional termination and scholarly ostracisation) was an appropriate response. I don't doubt that many people who disagree with Stock's ideas in good faith, thought these issues through, and argued against her in a reasoned and respectful manner. Unfortunately, their voices were drowned out by shouts of ad hominem vitriol. Third, I was alarmed at the absolute self-assuredness of the campaign against Stock. This final characteristic may in part explain the extremism of the first two. If one is so thoroughly convinced of one's own righteousness, such that neither doubt nor inquiry are permitted, then it becomes more easily self-evident to hold the view that those who dissent deserve neither consideration nor respect, and that deliberation is not only unnecessary, but undesirable, when adjudicating against them. 

These thoughts haunted me last week as I watched the campaign unfold against Stock. Yet, like many colleagues who share similar concerns, I refrained from saying or doing anything. Of course, I had good reasons to refrain from speaking up. I am unfamiliar with Kathleen Stock's work; therefore, I cannot assess its quality.  Nor do I have any academic expertise in the question of sex and gender self-identification. Nor am I a member of Stock's university. Nor am I a particularly prominent or distinguished scholar; like so many colleagues, I tend to my small plot of scholarship and find satisfaction when that work bears modest fruit for others who share my intellectual interests.  In short, no-one is breathless in anticipation waiting for me to comment on the "Stock affair". 

These are all good and valid reasons to stay quiet regarding a moral panic unfolding miles away. However, there is another, stronger reason that invalidates these. I was, and am, afraid. As I watch what is happening to Kathleen Stock, in the back of my mind is hidden the nasty, selfish thought: "at least it's not me".  I cannot deny that, had I been true to my conscience, I would have spoken up immediately in Stock's defence because her treatment is so clearly an affront to conscience. And because, through her, what is being attacked is a fundamental right - the freedom to speak, to deliberate, and to dissent openly without fear of persecution. This right is protected under art. 19 of the ICCPR, art. 10 of the ECHR, and art.10 of the Human Rights Act which incorporates the ECHR into domestic British law. Section 43 (No. 2) of the 1986 Education Act requires of English and Welsh universities that they ensure freedom of speech within the law is secured for their members, students, employees, and visiting speakers. 

Thus, when Adam Tickell, the Vice-Chancellor of Sussex University, defended Stock against her aggressors he was affirming the university's adherence to the principle of the rule of law and respect for those rights protected by law. In contrast, when the Sussex branch of the UCU issued a statement omitting any mention of support for Stock, it signalled both its contempt for the rule of law and for the first aim and objective of the UCU organisational rulebook: "To protect and promote the professional interests of members individually and collectively". 

It was this last development that finally convinced me to overcome my fear and to express myself in accordance with my conscience. I don't know Kathleen Stock. I imagine that, if we met, we would find ourselves on opposing sides of many issues. However, I sincerely believe that she deserves professional consideration as a scholar - a position that permits her and obliges her to critically inquire into the world, to seek the truth within her object of inquiry, and to disseminate the findings of her research. Over and above this, Kathleen Stock deserves empathy and respect as a person, and she deserves to have her rights respected, including her right to freedom of expression. As do we all. 

Alexis Artaud de La Ferrière, 12 Oct. 2021