Something very worrying has been happening since controversy erupted over the open letter signed by more than 950 academics raising academic-freedom concerns about disciplinary proceedings against Dr Nathan Cofnas at Ghent University.
Cofnas, a philosopher who describes himself as a “race realist”, was among those who publicly scrutinised the academic work of Cambridge University’s youngest ever black professor, Dr Jason Arday, before being preventively suspended and placed under preliminary disciplinary investigation by Ghent following Arday’s death. The letter challenges that institutional response, arguing that academics must remain free to raise evidence of alleged research misconduct without being punished for doing so.
The Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) has since been contacted by a growing number of signatories worried about professional repercussions and ostracism within their departments and wider disciplinary networks for having put their names to it.
They have shown us ideologically charged abuse from colleagues and peers, outlandish allegations that signatories – including junior and precariously employed academics – are somehow funded by billionaire libertarian political figures in the US, and complaints denouncing them as racists, supporters of eugenics and, naturally, members of that jejune category so beloved of activist members of the professional-managerial class when they move in for a quick cancellation: “the far Right”.
Some complaints have been sent to senior university administrators and institutional bodies, in some cases explicitly calling for disciplinary action, with the academics concerned copied in.
In other cases seen by CAF, senior academic managers have written directly to signatories to tell them they were wrong to sign, before reminding them that, under university policy, academic freedom and freedom of speech are qualified rights.
One signatory currently organising an interdisciplinary conference and editing a collection arising from it says that, after being publicly accused of being racist, a bigot and “far Right” for signing the letter, participants withdrew from both projects.
In another particularly serious case, CAF is supporting a signatory whose institutional role and associated privileges may now be at risk. And that, unfortunately, is all we can say while the matter is live.
But while CAF is taking up some of these cases directly with the universities concerned, reminding them of their statutory duties under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, as amended by the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, to secure freedom of speech within the law and protect academic freedom, in others we have agreed that the better course for now is simply to monitor the situation rather than risk escalating it through an intervention.
Either way, the wider chilling effect should not be underestimated. Formal disciplinary action need never materialise for professional detriment to be felt in the invitations that simply stop arriving, the collaborations that quietly fall away, the editorial board memberships that are mysteriously never renewed, and the myriad other opportunities that disappear as reputations are damaged within departments and wider disciplinary networks. Academics who experience this themselves, or simply hear that colleagues have faced complaints, institutional pressure or professional ostracism after signing a contentious public statement, will inevitably think twice before adding their names to the next one.
If you signed the letter and are now facing pressure from colleagues or your institution, please get in touch. CAF can advise, intervene with universities and, in the most egregious cases, arrange specialist legal assistance.
Email manager@afcomm.org.uk.
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.