Unherd stoke on trent for free#

Once you have handed over the control to decide which opinions may be expressed, or even thought, not just in the workplace but on social media or perhaps in private, it will be near-impossible to reclaim. Suddenly, something that unions were created to deter can be used against those whose views are deemed intolerable. What you lose by calling on employers to discipline or sack your workmates for their opinions is power. Suggested article Stonewall's greatest betrayalĪnd so UCU’s behaviour, in refusing to side with Stock, is a tragedy in itself. What you have in common is a shared interest in protecting each other from abuses of power by those who have power over you. You will, you should, differ from your workmates in all sorts of respects - sex, gender identity, race, age, political views, tastes and habits. The point is that you have more power by standing together than as individuals. The point of defending a fellow employee’s right to keep their job is not that you agree with their ideas, or that you like them. But it seems to have gone out of fashion - or, even worse, been forgotten. It’s easy to replace one unruly employee, but not so easy to replace an entire workforce who have walked out in support. Because most of us need to earn a living, there is generally a power imbalance between employer and employee, and joining together in a trade union is a way to counteract that imbalance. Like freedom of expression, employment rights were won by centuries of collective action.

Unherd stoke on trent for free#

In a weird reversal of the suffragette motto “deeds not words”, on campus and in middle-class life more generally there is an intense corrective emphasis on words not deeds.”īut the union’s statement was not just a defeat for free speech - it was a stark sign of how far union politics has fallen in recent decades. In Professor Stock’s words, which I read out on her behalf: “Young people are frightened to say what they think. Freedom of speech, after all, is important precisely because it underpins all other freedoms: without being able to say what you think, freedom of thought is impossible. It is, of course, important to defend the right to protest, though harassment and intimidation of individuals - as experienced by Stock - clearly goes beyond the free expression of dissent. The statement then goes on to endorse the Students’ Union support for the protesting students, who by Stock’s account have been largely menacing. It later clarifies its authors “oppose all forms of bullying, harassment and intimidation of staff and students” - and that they “do not endorse the call for any worker to be summarily sacked”. “We urge our management to take a clear and strong stance against transphobia at Sussex,” it warned. Suggested article Trans activism has mummy issues Yesterday, it issued a “ statement In Support of Trans And Nonbinary Communities at Sussex”, in which it called on the university to enshrine “the dignity and respect of trans and nonbinary staff and students”. What was striking, however, was the decision of the Sussex branch of UCU - the trade union representing academics in the UK - to follow suit.

In today’s climate, perhaps we should not be surprised by the decision of yet another student union to disavow the importance of academic freedom. Sussex University Students’ Union has issued a statement saying it does not support the University’s stance, and expressing disappointment “that our Vice-Chancellor is lending support to views which have been causing severe distress to students, and that the University did not reach out to our trans and non-binary community.” Vice Chancellor Adam Tickell said the university would not tolerate harassment and intimidation, or be pressured by calls to sack Professor Stock.īut not everybody has been so quick to defend academic freedom, free expression or the right not to be fired for holding unpopular views. Since the campaign against her gathered momentum last week, University of Sussex has issued statements in support of academic freedom of speech and expression, and of challenging one’s own ideas by listening to others. I think the people who attended in order to criticise her views felt somewhat cheated by her absence, as well as those who were more sympathetic to her position. It would have been better, of course, if Professor Stock had been able to take part in the debate, rather than send a written statement.