Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause

I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
In the case of Noah Carl, whose research I do know a little, I made the following comments at the time the controversy arose:
https://t.co/fnUEFR6Niq
I also agree with the sentiments expressed by @oxsoc here:
https://t.co/9wQwoqnWDp
I oppose the harrassment of researchers for saying what they think. But I also think poorly thought through government intervention will be a disaster. And I think that research used to justify said intervention should take care to get its facts correct.
I criticised Kaufmann's research because (a) it is prominent (b) it is heavily cited in the government's own proposals (c) its flaws are obvious, and a matter of easily checked public record
It is disingenuous of Matt, who also knows all of these things, to portray my criticism as motivated by a desire to suppress debate of free speech on campus. I have never expressed any such desire, and I do not have any such desire
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Insisting that a report making strong claims about no platforming on campus gets its facts right is not a suppression of debate. It is application of basic standards.
The kind of bad faith reasoning involved in the accusations Matthew makes in this tweet do not serve the debate he claims to want and are in fact examples of the kinds of bad faith catastrophising and whataboutery used by those who do try to suppress free speech.
In sum: 1. I strongly support free speech on campus 2. I reject the government's proposals as poorly thought through and probably harmful 3. I strong believe in basic research standards. The Policy Exchange report used by the govt does not meet these
4. I do not believe the free speech debate is well served by self-aggrandizing actors making sweeping, bad faith claims about their own behaviour and treatment, and the behaviour and beliefs of their opponents.
I won't be saying anything further on this. This is not, to pre-empt Matthew's inevitable response, because I am "hiding from debate". It is because I have made the points I want to make, and I have other demands on my time.

More from Society

Like most movements, I have learned that the definition of feminism has expanded to include simply treating women like human beings.

(A thread for whoever feels like reading)


I have observed feminists on Twitter advocating for rape victims to be heard, rapists to be held accountable, for people to address the misogyny that is deeply rooted in our culture, and for women to be treated with respect.

To me, very easy things to get behind.

And the amount of pushback they receive for those very basic requests is appalling. I see men trip over themselves to defend rape and rapists and misogyny every chance they get. Some accounts are completely dedicated to harassing women on this site. It’s unhealthy.

Furthermore, I have observed how dedicated these misogynists are by how they treat other men that do not immediately side with them. There is an entire lexicon they have created for men who do not openly treat women with disrespect.

Ex: simp, cuck, white knight, beta

All examples of terms they use to demean a man who respects women.

To paraphrase what a wise man on this app said:

Some men hate women so much, they hate men who don’t hate women

You May Also Like

1

From today, we will memorize the names of 27 Nakshatras in Vedic Jyotish to never forget in life.

I will write 4 names. Repeat them in SAME sequence twice in morning, noon, evening. Each day, revise new names + recall all previously learnt names.

Pls RT if you are in.

2

Today's Nakshatras are:-

1. Ashwini - अश्विनी

2. Bharani - भरणी

3. Krittika - कृत्तिका

4. Rohini - रोहिणी

Ashwini - अश्विनी is the FIRST Nakshatra.

Repeat these names TWICE now, tomorrow morning, noon and evening. Like this tweet if you have revised 8 times as told.

3

Today's Nakshatras are:-

5. Mrigashira - मृगशिरा

6. Ardra - आर्द्रा

7. Punarvasu - पुनर्वसु

8. Pushya - पुष्य

First recall previously learnt Nakshatras twice. Then recite these TWICE now, tomorrow morning, noon & evening in SAME order. Like this tweet only after doing so.

4

Today's Nakshatras are:-

9. Ashlesha - अश्लेषा

10. Magha - मघा

11. Purvaphalguni - पूर्वाफाल्गुनी

12. Uttaraphalguni - उत्तराफाल्गुनी

Purva means that comes before (P se Purva, P se pehele), and Uttara comes later.

Read next tweet too.

5

Purva, Uttara prefixes come in other Nakshatras too. Purva= pehele wala. Remember.

First recall previously learnt 8 Nakshatras twice. Then recite those in Tweet #4 TWICE now, tomorrow morning, noon & evening in SAME order. Like this tweet if you have read Tweets #4 & 5, both.
॥ॐ॥
अस्य श्री गायत्री ध्यान श्लोक:
(gAyatri dhyAna shlOka)
• This shloka to meditate personified form of वेदमाता गायत्री was given by Bhagwaan Brahma to Sage yAgnavalkya (याज्ञवल्क्य).

• 14th shloka of गायत्री कवचम् which is taken from वशिष्ठ संहिता, goes as follows..


• मुक्ता-विद्रुम-हेम-नील धवलच्छायैर्मुखस्त्रीक्षणै:।
muktA vidruma hEma nIla dhavalachhAyaiH mukhaistrlkShaNaiH.

• युक्तामिन्दुकला-निबद्धमुकुटां तत्वार्थवर्णात्मिकाम्॥
yuktAmindukalA nibaddha makutAm tatvArtha varNAtmikam.

• गायत्रीं वरदाभयाङ्कुश कशां शुभ्रं कपालं गदाम्।
gAyatrIm vardAbhayANkusha kashAm shubhram kapAlam gadAm.

• शंखं चक्रमथारविन्दयुगलं हस्तैर्वहन्ती भजै॥
shankham chakramathArvinda yugalam hastairvahantIm bhajE.

This shloka describes the form of वेदमाता गायत्री.

• It says, "She has five faces which shine with the colours of a Pearl 'मुक्ता', Coral 'विद्रुम', Gold 'हेम्', Sapphire 'नील्', & a Diamond 'धवलम्'.

• These five faces are symbolic of the five primordial elements called पञ्चमहाभूत:' which makes up the entire existence.

• These are the elements of SPACE, FIRE, WIND, EARTH & WATER.

• All these five faces shine with three eyes 'त्रिक्षणै:'.