Several free speech and academic freedom groups have written to Ghent University’s rector, Petra De Sutter, urging her to resist calls to rescind the appointment of Dr Nathan Cofnas, after members of the university issued two separate interventions calling on the institution to reverse course.
Cofnas, a philosopher of science whose work addresses highly contentious questions around race, heredity and intelligence, was recently appointed as a researcher in the Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences at Ghent University, prompting a campaign over his work.
One public petition, launched by social science students at Ghent and signed by nearly 1,000 people, describes his views as “blatant racism” and demands that “Mr Cofnas hiring is to be stopped” [sic]. A separate open letter, signed by more than 300 staff and students – including 48 department members, three deans and two former deans – argues that his comments are incompatible with the university’s code of ethics and urges the rector and board to act accordingly.
The signatories to the pro-Cofnas letter include Professor Abhishek Saha, founder member of the London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom; Dr Edward Skidelsky, Director of the Committee for Academic Freedom; and William Mackesy, co-founder of Alumni for Free Speech.
In their letter, the signatories say they oppose this “attack” on academic freedom and stress that, while they are not endorsing any specific claims made by Cofnas, academics must be free to put forward controversial or provocative arguments without fear of losing their employment. Free speech and academic freedom, they write, are fundamental to the mission of any university: without them, there can be no genuine challenge to orthodoxy and no serious pursuit of knowledge. Even where conventional wisdom is sound, they argue, “it must remain open to criticism and debate; otherwise, living understanding becomes what John Stuart Mill called ‘dead dogma’”.
This is not the first time Cofnas has faced an organised campaign over an academic appointment. In February 2024, while a postdoctoral researcher in Cambridge’s Faculty of Philosophy and a College Research Associate at Emmanuel College, he published a blog post titled A Guide for the Hereditarian Revolution. The post sets up a contrast between what Cofnas describes as “woke” explanations for socioeconomic disparities – focused on environmental causes, above all “white racism”, and a concomitant emphasis on rooting out invisible discrimination and unconscious bias – and hereditarian accounts, which hold that at least some such differences reflect underlying genetic variation between populations.
From that premise, Cofnas drew some of his most contentious conclusions, claiming that under a colourblind admissions system based solely on academic qualifications, “blacks would make up 0.7% of Harvard students”, the number of black professors “would approach 0%” and “[b]lacks would disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment”.
The post provoked complaints from within and beyond Emmanuel, particularly among black students, some of whom said it left them feeling belittled and unwelcome, and as though their place at Cambridge would be viewed as unmerited. Following an investigation, Emmanuel College terminated Cofnas’s college affiliation in July 2024.
But, as the signatories to the Ghent letter note, subsequent developments have strengthened the case for protecting Cofnas’s academic freedom. In August 2025, Cambridge University dismissed all 58 student complaints arising from the same blog post, concluding that Cofnas’s views, “while seen by many as offensive, did not breach the law and did not contravene University regulations designed to uphold free speech.”
The signatories also point to a recent judgment in the County Court at Cambridge, in proceedings brought by Cofnas against Emmanuel College over the termination of his College Research Associate status. Although the claim was dismissed, the judge nevertheless held – albeit “with some reservation” – that both Cofnas’s belief in hereditarianism and his “anti-woke” belief qualified as protected philosophical beliefs for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
Strasbourg jurisprudence, as the signatories go on to note, is also relevant. Belgium, as a state party to the European Convention on Human Rights, is bound to respect protections for freedom of expression and belief – Article 10, for instance, accords especially strong protection to academic expression, while Article 9 protects freedom of belief. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly underlined the importance of academic freedom for the functioning of democratic societies, recognising in Erdoğan v Turkey that academic expression should receive “the highest level of protection under Article 10”. In the same case, the Court held that “any restrictions on the freedom of academics to carry out research and to publish their findings” must be subjected to careful scrutiny, and that the need for such restrictions must be convincingly established.
The Ghent intervention follows a wider statement signed by more than 140 academics, free speech campaigners and public figures defending Cofnas’s right to academic freedom. That statement concluded: “We agree that creating space for debate is an essential element of a university, and that such space should not be closed unless this is a last resort to prevent a clear threat of lasting and substantial harm.”
The signatories conclude by urging Rector Petra De Sutter to protect Dr Cofnas’s freedom of expression and belief, and uphold the principles of academic freedom on which the university depends.
This article forms part of the Committee for Academic Freedom’s monitoring of developments in UK higher education. To receive monthly updates and analysis on cases affecting academic freedom, click the link and subscribe to our newsletter.