Apart from the danger of appointing clones, there is also the risk that we are so pleasant and inclusive towards one another that we obstruct true debate. We should not let solidarity, community feeling, politeness or mutual respect – important as these are – take precedence over freedom of expression.
#I cannot get into the echo chamber strike free#
But as its dean of law, Erwin Chemerinsky, argues in a co-authored 2017 book, Free Speech on Campus, the university has to be the forum “for the new, the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox”. The University of California, Berkeley made global headlines when it was accused of attempting to bar politically incorrect speakers. This commitment to diversity of opinion also applies to those whom we, including our students, invite to speak or write. And, of course, ensuring the physical safety of students and staff is a key obligation for every university.īut, for the rest, I say let the lightning strike. Equally, we are bound by academic integrity, which outlaws plagiarism or fabrication. Clearly, we are bound by the laws against inciting hatred. That doesn’t mean that there are no limits. It is why I am so happy with colleagues who throw themselves not only into scholarly debates, but also into public and political controversies. This is a tradition that universities should still cherish. Search our database of more than 7,000 global university jobs This is why the increasing focus on diversity is so important, not only in terms of gender, ethnicity and culture, but also – maybe above all – in terms of opinions. There is a danger that universities appoint mainly people who look and think like us. However, a community also runs the risk of excluding non-mainstream thinking. A university is much more a community than an organisation, and it can flourish only on the basis of good mutual relations. A truly open debate requires appropriate codes of behaviour and an atmosphere of safety. I recognise that the daily reality can be difficult. It is open debate with students, colleagues and society that makes the university more than a mere echo chamber for received wisdom. This is something that we can do only if we are prepared to enter into serious conversation with all comers, including people with different views from ours. Our institution must always be a safe haven where all questions can be asked and answered freely. Diversity of opinion is a core principle for us – and for universities in general, which, more than any other institution, must maintain a commitment to defending the freedom of the spoken and written word. Leiden has for centuries had as its motto “ Praesidium Libertatis” (“Bastion of Freedom”), symbolising the courage to speak truth to power. But asking university leaders to silence their professors strikes me as perverse. These individuals are typically embarrassed by the comments, and ask me what I am going to do about them. As rector of Leiden University, I am sometimes buttonholed by concerned individuals on Twitter, at alumni events and even at the local market about some recent controversial statement that one of our scholars has made in the media.