Living in interesting times…

…And all that

This evening, I’ll be appearing alongside

Katy Barnett

at the Oxford Scholar, 427 Swanston St, Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia, at 5 for 5:30 pm. We’ll be on Level 1. We’re both appearing at the behest of the Australian branch of the Free Speech Union, and tickets are available here. It’s free for members and friends but you’ll need to sign up here so door staff know who’s coming.

I’m also doing two further Free Speech Union events later this week and on the weekend, but those are in Sydney and Brisbane: Thursday—October 17 at 19:00—at the Glenmore Hotel and Saturday—October 19 at 16:00—at The Paddo. People in those two cities can use this link to sign up.

I’m a known quantity in think-tank and literature worlds but, until Saturday’s Age thudded onto doorsteps throughout Victoria, many people would never have previously encountered Katy.

What she wrote is below. For subscribers, go here.

Katy has since copped an absolute earful from both sides of the interminable Israel-Palestine stooshie, chiefly because of her byline contents. There’s a reason why I (and lots of others) call it “the Omnicause” or “the fatberg of activism.”

Katy is a member of both the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism and the Free Speech Union of Australia, and lots of people think this is practically contradictory and intellectually impossible.

To her very great credit, she’s addressed these claims in a really excellent Substack piece I recommend you read—especially if you’re planning to come along tonight.

Obviously, my position on free speech is inconsistent with one of 5A’s stated missions, which is to have a particular more stringent definition of antisemitic hate speech adopted. In discussions within the group, my different approach and views were immediately evident, but I think people have become used to me now. On balance, I think it is better that I continue to be part of the organisation than not, for as long as people will still have me as part of the group, and listen to my point of view. I’m the free speech “sea anchor.”

If supporters of free speech do not engage with supporters of hate speech laws, we merely replicate the bad behaviour for which supporters of hate speech laws have become notorious. Sometimes, as my dad used to say, “you have to be the bigger man,” which means extending the dignity of debate to people who would prefer not to hash issues out, but rather, to cancel their opponents instead.

Interestingly, I observe that people on both sides are upset that they are not being treated equally. Pro-Palestinian activists point out to me that many Australian tertiary institutions issued statements of support for Ukraine in the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, but no such statements have been issued in support of Gazans. They have pointed out that some of the tactics they are using to silence pro-Israel voices are similar to the ones that pro-Israel activists have used in the past, and asked why they cannot use these tactics to protect themselves. They say they cannot get their opinions into circulation because they are regarded as antisemitic.

Jewish people who are pro-Israel point out that, while the “cultural safety” or hurt of other minority groups seems to lead tertiary institutions to intervene to prevent hurtful speech, it has not been applied to Jewish minorities on campus in the context of this conflict. Indeed, while other groups are protected from the smallest insults, actual physical attacks upon Jewish people have occurred on campuses. The testimony of the Ivy League presidents illustrated the double standards.

People who ordinarily would have rushed to halt “micro aggressions” towards any other minority group were defending actual acts of violence towards Jewish or Israeli students or staff, displaying a sudden startling commitment to freedom of speech and academic freedom. Moreover, pro-Israel Jewish and Israeli people say they cannot get their opinions into circulation because suddenly, academia and the arts world has silently closed ranks on them and they find themselves targeted unless they agree with a particular political view, namely that Zionism is racism.

These points are rule of law points: “Why is this conflict being treated differently from another? Why is this minority being treated differently from others?”

As they say, read the whole thing.

That the universities globally have become flashpoints for some of the worst behaviour is obvious to anyone with eyes and ears, and this fact forms the background to what we’ll be discussing this evening. Since Saturday, Katy has modelled something pretty close to the Platonic ideal of an academic, and it’s worth asking why there aren’t more like her.

She sketched out the diagram below when thinking about what we’ve both come to call “perverse incentives in the academy,” and will be speaking to it in response to some exploratory questions from me.

I last wielded a stick of chalk in anger at a university in 2010. Like many Tories, I left because it was both poorly paid and uncongenial. I recognise this option is easier for lawyers than for many other people, but there you have it. Katy stayed, is now a full professor at Melbourne Law School, and knows what she’s on about.