Sunday 17 July 2016

Calm objective academic discussion

Two academics who voted Leave have written of the reactions in the Times Higher...

On June 27, Joanna Williams said 

Some appear to see my decision as a personal insult and an act of treachery..
the past few days have witnessed a great deal of prejudice against those who voted to leave. In the eyes of some, the masses are as ignorant as they are xenophobic. To others, “Leavers” deserve pity, they were lied to and don’t know what is in their own best interests...Far from revealing the moral superiority of scholars, the referendum exposes exactly how out of touch academia has become...Some within universities have expressed outrage at not having their supposedly more informed views treated with greater respect. There is overt contempt for those looked down upon as too ignorant to genuflect to experts.'

Comments included some beauties:

There's less of a distinction than you think between someone who is racist, and someone who will side with racists in an argument that gets hijacked by fascistic rhetoric.

This article is so poorly reasoned it is hard to believe it was written sincerely.

This is a very bad article by someone with little understanding of the topic. In the first instance, nobody has ever questioned the fact that each person's vote is of equal value, but that some people have more knowledge and understanding of a topic than others. It is worth listening to them when one makes a decision, which need not comply with the advice. The Leave campaign not only ignored experts but dismissed them with great arrogance and at times insinuating a conspiracy. In the second instance, in giving her rationale for voting Leave, the author suggests that the EU is run by bureaucrats who cannot be voted out. This shows no knowledge of EU institutions, no understanding of the EU Parliament and the Council of Ministers and even less understanding of sovereignty, which is here at best a caricature of Hobbes. In the third instance, people most certainly had a variety of reasons for voting the way they did, but the Leave campaign was above all about immigration and an understanding of sovereignty as power over others rather than pooled sovereignty in an interconnected world. To try to dissociate oneself from the deep xenophobia and colonial construction of the nationalism displayed during the campaign is simply perverse. When siding with xenophobes, one is guilty by association.'

Let me try to explain: Europe is peace, commonality, solidarity, friendship--above and beyond the pitfalls of any bureaucracy. Europe is your kids travelling freely, mingelling [sic], studying, learning other languages, and working where they please--after centuries of hate and bloodshed. Europe is feeling home wherever you go. Europe is unity, rather than isolation. Being a European citizen makes you a citizen of the world. Europe is a dream that has become reality. Saying no to Europe takes us back to the Dark Ages. If you vote against Europe, you vote against this first and formost. It's like if you tear down you house to fix a pipe leak. You all seem not to catch that.'
The English really do hate intellect, don't they? But then, it's built into the language - too clever by half, too clever for your own good. I guess that the expanding numbers who chorus their denigration of expertise never visit the doctor or dentist.'
 
To be fair, some were supportive too... 

Then the legendary controversialist Frank Furedi entered the fray on July 14:


By Monday, I realise that in academic circles, frustration at the referendum outcome has mutated into a collective sense of injury and emotional upheaval: a climate of quasi-mourning. Many target their anger at lying politicians, but they are also bitter towards the public for letting them down. It is as if the academy has been stabbed in the back by a section of the population that lacked the moral and intellectual resources to understand its wisdom. Some – taking politics far too personally – interpret the verdict as an attack on academic identity itself...During the days after the referendum, some institutions’ administrators assume the role of censorious moral guardians. As if the university faces a national emergency, my own institution establishes a “Post-EU referendum advice and support” web page. Other institutions warn anyone against upsetting emotionally brittle members of the university...An email circulated to all staff by Sir Keith Burnett, vice-chancellor of the University of Sheffield, laments the plight of EU academics in the UK: “By far the worst aspect of Brexit inside the university is the awful hurt it is giving many of my colleagues,” it reads. “This hurt comes in many parts. The first is the shock and dismay at being labelled as nastily ‘other’. A second is the dark sense of insecurity that has enveloped them.” But he does not mention the fact that members of the academy have also been in the business of “othering” the supposedly uneducated, racist Brexit voters.'

The comments were much more balanced this time --signs of 'healing'?



.

No comments:

Post a Comment