• The New Patriarchy : How Trans Radicalism Hurts Women, Children—and Trans People Themselves - Quillette

    Important article que j’attire à l’attention de @tradfem. Et dont l’autrice Helen Joyce parle avec respect des femmes trans, ce qui ajoute à sa crédibilité. Il est question de #transidentité, de #détransition, d’un activisme misogyne orienté vers la définition de la #non-mixité aux dépens des femmes cis alors que les violences transphobes viennent d’ailleurs que des féministes radicales. Bref : #backlash post-moderne ?

    A simple declaration—“gender self-identification”—is all it takes to override biology.

    One consequence is a huge increase in the number of people who say they do not identify with their natal sex. In Britain, for example, since the GRA came into force, just 5,000 people have used its provisions. Now the government reckons that approximately 1% of the population is transgender—around 650,000 people.

    Another consequence relates to the question of who is permitted to use single-sex facilities. What Americans call the “bathroom wars”—between liberals, who have embraced gender self-ID, and conservatives, who have largely resisted it—in fact goes far beyond public toilets. Changing rooms, school residential trips, rape and domestic-violence refuges, and prisons are going self-ID. So are electoral shortlists and even sporting competitions.

    Redefining what it means to be a man or woman redefines what it means to be gay. Depending on how they identify, people with male bodies who prefer female sexual partners may regard themselves as either heterosexual men or lesbian women. It also affects women’s political activism, since defining womanhood as based on a feeling rather than anatomy is incompatible with the feminist position that women are oppressed because they are physically weaker than men and bear the entire burden of reproduction. And it affects education: Many schools now tell children that being a boy or girl is not a matter of what it says on their birth certificates, but what they feel like. Since that is a circular definition, lessons quickly degenerate into endorsing sex-stereotypes: If you like trains and trucks, maybe you’re a boy. If you like pink chiffon, a girl.

    This essay will trace the evolution of the notion of gender identity and how it has supplanted biological sex in law and practice. It will examine the consequences for four groups in particular: children, women, gays and lesbians, and trans people themselves.

    By the 1960s, male-to-female “sex changes” were available in many countries, including the United States. Surgeons generally required would-be patients to live as a member of the opposite sex for some time, and sought to screen out anyone likely to change their mind, or who was depressed, or psychotic, or had perverse reasons to transition—for example a man’s voyeuristic desire to gain access to women’s spaces or a pedophile’s to gain access to children.

    Some specialists thought the desire to transition had external causes, such as childhood abuse, which might lead someone to reject the body that had been violated. Others posited internal causes, such as a disorder of body image akin to anorexia, or autogynephilia, a paraphilia by which a heterosexual man finds the idea of himself as a woman erotic and seeks to give flesh to that notion.

    But alongside these varied theories ran two lines of thinking that originated in America in the 1950s and fused into a single, dominant narrative half a century later.

    By twists and turns, a dominant theory about cross-sex identities had emerged. It held that humans come equipped with an innate, gendered sense of who they are—not just those who wished to transition from one sex to another, but also “cis” people (those content with their natal sex) and people who are non-binary, genderqueer or dozens of similar terms. In 2007, Julia Serano, a trans woman (natal male), called this sense “subconscious sex”: a “profound, inexplicable, intrinsic self-knowing”—much like a spirit. Since then, in a borrowing of Stoller’s term, it has come to be known as “gender identity.”

    Though entirely at odds with the way most people live their lives and regard the society around them, this esoteric concept caught on—in part because it aligned with ideological trends on campus, and in part because those who disagreed with it didn’t see it as anything except harmless theorizing. “If the entire faculty believes something, and you never hear anyone discussing an alternative point of view, you come away believing it too,” says Michael Biggs of Oxford University, who studies social movements.

    Everything trans people had sought for decades, such as better treatment, more research into gender dysphoria and greater protection from harassment and discrimination, became absorbed into a single demand: instant, unfettered gender self-identification. The demand bears a superficial resemblance to a civil-rights movement, says Chetan Bhatt, a sociologist at the London School of Economics. But unlike grass-roots human-rights movements, its development has been top-down: It originated in elite institutions, including governments, universities, gender clinics and large charities, rather than community-based groups.

    The movement has been shockingly successful. In many American states, access to designated single-sex facilities is now governed by self-ID. New Zealand is planning to allow people to change the sex on their birth certificates by making a statutory declaration; some Australian states are considering removing sex from birth certificates altogether. In Britain, all the main political parties support gender self-ID.

    GIDS may prescribe drugs to delay puberty from around age 12, in order to give children time to reconsider without puberty changing their bodies irreversibly. It will not prescribe cross-sex hormones until age 16, or offer surgery until age 18.

    In America, by contrast, an increasing number of clinics take a “gender-affirmative” approach, quickly acquiescing to a child’s professed cross-sex identity. Therapists at UCSF’s Child and Adolescent Gender Centre in San Francisco have supported social transition (change of name, pronouns and clothing) for children as young as three.

    Privately, some experienced clinicians admit they are worried. One says she hears of people leaving the field more often than she used to, and sometimes fears that she is doing more harm than good. She thinks the wave of transitioning teenagers may be followed in a decade or two by another of “de-transitioners” reverting to their natal sex. Their bodies will have been irreversibly marked by cross-sex hormones and perhaps surgery. Some may sue, arguing that the adults around them should have known they could not fully comprehend what they were consenting to.

    Those who missed puberty in their own sex will probably be sterile—indeed, sexually functionless.

    Bish, a British website aimed at teenagers, encourages them to work out their “gender identities” by placing themselves on several “gender spectrums” with words like rational, tough, active and independent under “looks masculine,” and emotional, soft, passive and sharer under “looks feminine.”

    The stereotyping has even made it as far as materials intended for adults. The British Association for Counselling Practitioners, which licenses marriage counsellors and so on, recently produced a guide to “Gender, Sexual and Relationship Diversity” for its members. It defines a woman thus: “It is important not to assume…that being a woman necessarily involves being able to bear children, or having XX sex chromosomes, or breasts. Being a woman in a British cultural context often means adhering to social norms of femininity, such as being nurturing, caring, social, emotional, vulnerable, and concerned with appearance.”

    Eileen Fairweather (...) recalls “anguished, earnest” discussions with feminist friends about what they should write about it. “I did draft something, arguing that the existing age of consent was not ‘patriarchal’, but protected children,” she says. “But I never even dared show it to anyone.” No-one back then realized the extent and brutality of child-abuse. And the pedophile movement had so thoroughly hijacked the gay movement that, if you said you were against “child sexual liberation”—as, outrageously, they put it—you were branded “anti-gay.” She says she sees “the same intimidation and paralysis of intelligence” with the transgender debate, with people terrified to express legitimate concerns about infiltration and safeguarding.

    Far more women will be affected by the trend towards self-ID for single-sex spaces. For public toilets, gym changing rooms, women-only swimming sessions and the like, women who do not want to disrobe in mixed company may decide to opt out. Some have a strong preference for privacy; others have religious reasons. Rosa Freedman, a human-rights lawyer and Orthodox Jew, points out that her beliefs, and those of many Muslim women, mean she cannot use such spaces if the sexes mix.

    Others are fearful for their safety. Though no reasonable person thinks most trans women (or men for that matter) are violent or rapists, most violent crimes are committed by males. There is no evidence that simply identifying as a woman means a male should be regarded as lower-risk. Women therefore have reason to be wary of biological males, including trans women, in situations where they are vulnerable. Many women also worry that predatory men will profess to identify as women in order to gain access to spaces where women are exposed.

    Earlier this year Karen White, a self-identified trans woman with a record of sexual offences against women, was placed in a women’s prison in Britain—and promptly assaulted several other prisoners. In October, White was given a life sentence for these assaults and two previous rapes. The prosecution argued that White had used a “transgender persona” to gain access to vulnerable women to abuse.

    Most British rape-crisis centres and domestic-violence refuges admit self-identified trans women, even though the Equality Act of 2010 permits them to restrict their services to biological females. According to someone who has worked in the women’s sector for more than 20 years, those running such services sometimes truly believe that is reasonable. But far more have gone self-ID because they fear becoming targets of trans-activist campaigns and losing funding.

    Without single-sex services, vulnerable women will suffer, says Judith Green. In the 1980s, as a teenager, she suffered repeated sexual abuse, and eventually received help from a survivors’ group in Brighton that arranged self-help sessions and therapy. Participants had been traumatised at men’s hands and their recovery required them to rebuild trust, she says. For her, and many other women, that would have been impossible in a mixed-sex group, no matter how well-meaning or sympathetic the males.

    Since it is impossible to tell why someone might wish to use facilities designated for the opposite sex, such cases may mean service-providers in places where self-ID is mandatory end up designating all facilities mixed-sex. That would be a bad outcome for women. Figures gathered by the Times, a British newspaper, under freedom-of-information laws found that the minority of changing-rooms in sports centres that are mixed-sex were the site of 90% of reported sexual assaults in changing-rooms of all kinds.


    JY, who uses a man’s name and whose profile picture is clearly male, asked if Ms Poyer did Brazilians (removal of pubic hair). “Not for men, sorry,” she replied. “I’m a woman, I transitioned last year,” JY replied. JY then made a complaint to British Columbia’s human-rights tribunal, alleging discrimination on the grounds of gender identity, seeking an apology and damages of C$2,500. (The tribunal has asked that JY be referred to only by those initials, rather than the full name, as would be usual for cases it hears.)

    The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a Canadian non-profit libertarian group, offered to represent Ms. Poyer. It prepared two defences: that waxing male genitalia requires different training and equipment, which she does not possess, and that, as a woman, she, too, has protected rights, namely to privacy and safety.

    “This is a philosophy that agrees with the drunks on the Tube that I’m not a ‘real woman,’ ” says a young lesbian in London who gets her hair cut by a barber and wears suits from a men’s tailor. “We used to fight to smash open the pink and blue boxes of gender,” says a veteran of the fight to decriminalize homosexual relations. “Now they’re telling kids that if they don’t fit into one of those boxes, they must belong in the other one.” Both are among the growing number who think the doctrine of gender self-ID is a retrograde philosophy that relies on obsolete gender stereotypes and harms gay people.

    Some gay people think that organizations set up to fight for gay rights made a mistake in throwing their weight behind trans activism. In an open letter in the Times in October, some prominent gays and lesbians accuse Stonewall, Britain’s biggest LGBT charity, of “uncritically adopting a form of transgender politics which undermines…the concept of homosexuality itself.”


    Get the L Out, a small group of lesbians who insist that opposite-sex-attracted males cannot be lesbians whatever their gender identity, forced its way to the front of the Pride march in London this year, with banners reading “Transactivism erases lesbians” and “lesbian equals female homosexual.” Ms. Hunt called the group “transphobic” and said it was spreading “myths and lies.”

    Whether people are attracted to sexes or gender identities is an empirical question. A study published in the Journal of Personal and Social Relationships in the Spring suggests it is usually the former (though the authors have a different interpretation, namely endemic transphobia).


    Riley J. Dennis, a trans woman, attributes “preferences for women with vaginas over women with penises” to “cis-sexism”—anti-trans prejudice. “Look, it’s not like I require the women I date to be cool with having my dick inside them,” writes another trans woman, Avery Edison. “But being shut off from the very idea of it, not even considering that having my penis inside you is different from having a man’s penis inside you? That hurts.”

    But according to Charlie Montague, a young lesbian in Dunedin, New Zealand, both online dating sites and real-world meet-ups for lesbians now contain a fair share of males who have been through no sort of physical transition but describe themselves as lesbians. Some are predatory men who fantasize about sex with lesbians, she says; others genuinely regard themselves as same-sex attracted women. She and a few other “female lesbians” have set up a group, the Lesbian Rights Alliance Aotearoa. They have faced a barrage of abuse, both on- and offline. “When we say ‘no means no’, they regard that as transphobic,” she says. “They don’t like lesbians asserting firm boundaries.”

    The main social-media platforms are making it very hard for women to discuss these issues. Meghan Murphy, a Canadian feminist who runs a website, Feminist Current, has been kicked off Twitter for “hateful conduct”—that is, tweeting that “Men aren’t women” and “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?” Twitter also temporarily locked various women’s accounts for, inter alia, quoting remarks made by British parliamentarians in the debate over the Gender Recognition Act of 2004; for stating the British definition of rape (which can be committed only by a male, since it involves penetration by a penis); and for referring to JY of Brazilian-waxing fame as “he.” It even locked a trans woman’s account for self-describing as “male.”

    Women seeking to organize in person are being silenced, too. (...) WPUK has scheduled nearly 20 meetings around Britain to date, every one of them disrupted. Some venues cancelled bookings after trans activists claimed it was a far-right hate group.

    In Canada, even complaining can get a woman into trouble. In July, Kristi Hanna, a former resident at Palmerston House, a women’s shelter in Ontario, left after being assigned a transgender room-mate, who stomped around in combat boots, had facial and chest hair, and talked about a pregnant fiancée. All the residents found the situation intimidating, she says, and after two sleepless nights she complained and was told to “deal with it or leave.” But when she phoned Ontario’s human-rights legal helpline, she referred to the individual as a “man,” at which point the adviser said that her words and behaviour were potentially discriminatory and ended the call.

    “I can’t think of any genuine human-rights activism that demands attacks on the rights and protections of other civil-society groups, or advocates hateful language against them,” says Professor Bhatt. Trans activism is also unusual in that it gives men a chance to claim they are oppressed compared with women, and plenty of opportunity to tell women to shut up, says Ms. Gerlich. “It’s a postmodern patriarchal backlash.”

    The code of omertà extends to academia. After lobbying by trans activists, Brown University in Rhode Island withdrew a press release about Prof. Littman’s paper on ROGD, citing concerns that it might be used to “discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.” Last year, Bath Spa University, in southwest England, rejected a proposal by James Caspian, a psychotherapist who specializes in transgender clients, to write a thesis on de-transitioning, explaining that the research might be criticised on social media and it would be “better not to offend people.” Kathleen Stock, a philosopher at Sussex University, wrote a Medium post in May about the lack of discussion of gender self-ID within academic philosophy. Trans-activists called for her to be sacked—and she received dozens of supportive emails from other academics, most saying they dared not speak out publicly.

    #censure #liberté_académique pour @cdb_77

    And the feisty British tabloid press has not shied away from covering rapists self-identifying themselves into women’s jails, boys allowed into Girlguiding and the like. The Daily Mail fought an injunction to be able to report on Jess Bradley, a trans woman suspended in July from the post of trans-rights officer at the National Union of Students because of allegations that she ran a blog named Exhibitionizm, where she posted pictures of her exposed penis, taken in public places and in her office.


    The singular focus on gender self-ID, along with the shutting down of academic work on trans issues, harms not only women, but trans people. Although trans activists’ ire is focused on women who object to self-ID, it is overwhelmingly men who commit violence against trans people, a problem that by comparison is ignored. And other causes that are important to trans people, such as more research on the causes and treatment of gender dysphoria and its links with other mental-health issues, not to mention the long-term effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, have become taboo.

    Overall, the push for gender self-ID does more harm than good to the interests of gender-dysphoric people whose main concern is to be accepted by members of the sex they wish they had been born into. And as we see more cases of people claiming transgender status in bad faith, we may see a backlash.

    • Who Are the Rich, White Men Institutionalizing Transgender Ideology?

      As an environmental activist who was deplatformed from a speaking venue by transactivists, in 2013 I developed curiosity about the power of this group to force this development. A year later, when Time magazine announced a transgender tipping point on its cover, I had already begun to examine the money behind the transgender project.

      I have watched as all-women’s safe spaces, universities, and sports opened their doors to any man who chose to identify as a woman. Whereas men who identify as transwomen are at the forefront of this project, women who identify as transmen seem silent and invisible. I was astonished that such a huge cultural change as the opening of sex-protected spaces was happening at such a meteoric pace and without consideration for women and girls’ safety, deliberation, or public debate.

    • https://twitter.com/LaraAdamsMille1/status/1169370302880669698

      A very incomplete list of wealthy, socially powerful men who now identify as women (and thus have a strong interest in keeping the transgender snowball growing):

      Theresa Sparks, 70, is the Executive Director of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, the former president of the San Francisco Police Commission, & the former CEO of Good Vibrations (prominent sex shop). Pre-trans: Navy career, engineer, & private waste mgmt patent holder.

      Marci Bowers, 61, is one of the wealthiest working surgeons today, having performed over 3300 gender surgeries (at more than $17k a pop). Pre-trans: Navy helicopter pilot, medical school, Navy surgeon, private practice, wife, 3 kids. Has done a lot of TV and print stories.

      Jennifer Pritzker, GOP billionaire Hyatt hotel & industrial firm heir, founder/CEO private wealth management firm. One of the largest single donors to trans causes. Pre-trans: Army ’74-’79 82nd airborne sargeant, ’79, commissioned officer, Army reserve, 3 children by 2 ex-wives.

      Martine Rothblatt, 65, lawyer, entrepreneur, chairman and CEO of United Therapeutics. Net worth: $390 million. Pre-trans: UCLA law and MBA degrees, NASA, created Sirius Satellite Radio, ceo of Geostar, multiple satellite communication projects, wife, four kids.

      Caitlyn Jenner, 69, reality TV star, spokesmodel for H&M sports, Trump supporter. Net worth: $100 million. Pre-trans: college football player, Olympic decathlete, entrepreneur, auto racer, tv actor, celebrity endorser, 6 kids by 3 wives.

      Martine Rothblatt, 65, lawyer, entrepreneur, chairman and CEO of United Therapeutics. Net worth: $390 million. Pre-trans: UCLA law and MBA degrees, NASA, created Sirius Satellite Radio, ceo of Geostar, multiple satellite communication projects, wife, four kids.

      Lynn Conway, 81, computer scientist, inventor, trans activist. Pre-trans: Educated at MIT, Columbia, in engineering and applied science, recruited by IBM, wife, two kids. Holds five patents, many honors and awards, extensive involvement/investment in early computing.

      Les données sont intéressantes (des hommes de droite très conformistes ou réacs) et les hypothèses également mais le ton est assez dégueulasse, comme si toutes les femmes trans étaient anti-féministes, ce qui est loin d’être le cas.

      J’ai parlé de ça autour de moi et certaines personnes risquent l’hypothèse que ces femmes trans ont été des mecs parfaits (armée, hétérosexualité, misogynie ou conservatisme) pour compenser une identité féminine pas assumée. Cette autrice pense que ces personnes sont véritablement des misogynes qui ont entamé des transitions par #auto-gynophilie, mues par un désir pour les femmes et pour la femme en elles... En tout cas ce ne sont pas des camarades.


  • Obstacles to Excellence: Academic Freedom & China’s Quest for World Class Universities

    Obstacles to Excellence is a new report from Scholars at Risk mapping threats to academic freedom that jeopardize China’s higher education ambitions.

    “For decades now, the Chinese government has invested heavily in academic institutions and programs designed to compete with the world’s finest,” says SAR executive director Robert Quinn. “This positive ambition is undermined, however, by state policies and practices that fail to protect academic freedom. This poses grave personal and professional risks for Chinese scholars and students,” as documented in the report, “and serious academic, reputational, and financial risks for foreign academic institutions with partnerships with Chinese counterparts, in China or abroad.”

    Drawing on academic literature, legislative and regulatory texts, media, human rights reports, interviews with Chinese and foreign experts, and data from SAR’s Academic Freedom Monitoring Project, Obstacles to Excellence identifies pressures and threats to academic freedom in China and where China has extraterritorial academic connections, including:

    Systematic and targeted tactics employed by state and university authorities in mainland China to constrict academic activity and to intimidate, silence, and punish outspoken academics and students;
    Heightened pressures on scholars and students in the Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Regions including language policies that limit equitable access to higher education, heightened surveillance, and the imprisonment of a growing number of minority scholars and students at so-called “re-education camps;”
    Erosion of university autonomy in Hong Kong and Macau under Beijing’s growing influence over China’s Special Administrative Regions;
    Academic freedom and autonomy challenges facing foreign higher education institutions operating joint ventures with Chinese universities on the mainland;
    Extra-territorial pressures by the Chinese Party-state and supporters, through Confucius Institutes and other activities, to restrict academic inquiry and expression at universities outside China; and
    Vague, unsubstantiated, and overbroad foreign government rhetoric and policies that impede academic inquiry and risk stigmatizing innocent overseas Chinese academics and students.

    As noted in the report, a small but growing number of international universities have responded to academic freedom concerns by scaling back or terminating partnerships with institutions in mainland China and with China-supported institutes on their own campuses. Others have stayed out of the public dialogue. Obstacles to Excellence urges nuanced, public discussion of the issues, with the goal of identifying practices which recognize China’s legitimate higher education ambitions while fully protecting academic freedom.

    “Pressures on academic freedom in China mirror those we see around the world, as documented in our annual Free to Think reports,” says SAR’s advocacy director Clare Robinson. “But given the size of its higher education sector, and China’s important and growing position on the global academic stage, it is more important than ever to discuss the issues raised publicly and to work together to institutionalize policies and practices that safeguard academic freedom and recognize its central role in world-class universities and scholarship.”

    Obstacles to Excellence, available in English and simplified Chinese versions, invites readers to consider these important issues and to discuss them publicly, including at conferences, annual association meetings, and in international partnerships. It includes recommendations for Chinese state authorities, university leadership, and civil society in China aimed at strengthening understanding of and respect for academic freedom. It also urges state authorities, higher education leaders, and civil society outside of China to demonstrate their commitment to academic freedom by supporting at-risk Chinese scholars and students, wherever they may be, and by ensuring that their international partnerships—with Chinese and non-Chinese partners alike—respect academic freedom and other core university values.

    #liberté_académique #Chine #université #rapport #scholars_at_risk #éducation #Tibet #Mongolie #Xinjiang_Uyghur #Macau #Hong_Kong #Confucius_Institutes

    Ce mot d’#excellence qui me dérange beaucoup...

  • China : Government Threats to Academic Freedom Abroad

    New 12-Point Code of Conduct to Help Educational Institutions Respond.

    Institutions of higher learning around the world should resist the Chinese government’s efforts to undermine academic freedom abroad, Human Rights Watch said today. On March 21, 2019, Human Rights Watch published a 12-point Code of Conduct for colleges and universities to adopt to respond to Chinese government threats to the academic freedom of students, scholars, and educational institutions.

    Many colleges and universities around the world with ties to the Chinese government, or with large student populations from China, are unprepared to address threats to academic freedom in a systematic way, Human Rights Watch said. Few have moved to protect academic freedom against longstanding problems, such as visa bans on scholars working on China or surveillance and self-censorship on their campuses.

    “Colleges and universities that stand together are better equipped to resist Chinese government harassment and surveillance on campuses, visa denials, and pressures to censor or self-censor,” said Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch. “Most important, they will be better prepared to ensure academic freedom on their campuses for all students and scholars, particularly those from China.”

    The proposed Code of Conduct is based on more than 100 interviews between 2015 and 2018 in Australia, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States with academics, graduate and undergraduate students, and administrators, some of them from China. The people interviewed came from a range of institutions, including globally known universities, large public institutions, and small, private colleges. Almost all were from or study China, or have operated academic programs on behalf of their institutions in China.

    Human Rights Watch found various threats to academic freedom resulting from Chinese government pressure. Chinese authorities have long monitored and conducted surveillance on students and academics from China and those studying China on campuses around the world. Chinese diplomats have also complained to university officials about hosting speakers – such as the Dalai Lama – whom the Chinese government considers “sensitive.”

    Academics told Human Rights Watch that students from China have described threats to their families in China in response to what those students had said in the classroom. Scholars from China detailed being directly threatened outside the country by Chinese officials to refrain from criticizing the Chinese government in classroom lectures or other talks. Others described students from China remaining silent in their classrooms, fearful that their speech was being monitored and reported to Chinese authorities by other students from China. One student from China at a university in the United States summed up his concerns about classroom surveillance, noting: “This isn’t a free space.”

    Many of the academics interviewed identified censorship and self-censorship as serious concerns. One said a senior administrator has asked them “as a personal favor” to decline media requests during a visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping, fearing that it could have ramifications for their university.

    At two US universities, senior administrators cancelled appearances by speakers they believed the Chinese government would deem “sensitive,” and in one of those cases, the dean explained to a faculty member that the school did not want to lose its growing number of students from China. In another case, colleagues discouraged a scholar at a university with a large population of students from China from assigning his classes potentially “sensitive” titles. Two described academics participating in hiring panels in which the candidates were questioned during job interviews about their views on Confucius Institutes, which are effectively international outposts of China’s Ministry of Education that offer classes in Chinese language and culture.

    Many of those interviewed said they modified their remarks inside and outside classrooms because of fears of being denied access to China or to funding sources, of causing problems for students or scholars from China or their family members, or of offending or irking students or scholars from China.

    Many expressed discomfort with the presence of Confucius Institutes on their campuses. They said the presence of such institutions fundamentally compromised their institution’s commitment to academic freedom, especially when Confucius Institutes had been invited to their campuses without broad faculty consultation. In 2019, Victoria University cancelled the screening of a documentary critical of Confucius Institutes after the university’s Confucius Institute complained.

    A number of US institutions, including the University of Chicago, North Carolina State University, and the University of Massachusetts Boston have closed or announced they will close the Confucius Institutes on their campuses because of concerns about academic freedom, among other reasons.

    Few of those interviewed believed that their institutions offered any guidance or practical protections to enable them to speak freely.

    “Universities can’t continue to rely solely on honor codes or other statements of principle designed to address issues like cheating, plagiarism, or tenure to address pressure from the Chinese government on academic freedom abroad,” Richardson said. “Those don’t envision – let alone set out remedies for – the kinds of threats to academic freedom now widely reported.”

    As concerns about the Chinese government undermining human rights around the world have grown, students and scholars from China told Human Rights Watch they increasingly feel they are regarded with suspicion within their educational institutions.

    A recent Wilson Center study of Chinese political influence in higher education in the US found it important that “countermeasures neither vilify PRC [mainland] students as a group, nor lose sight of the fact that these students, along with faculty members of Chinese descent, are often the victims of influence and interference activities perpetrated by PRC diplomats and nationalistic peers.” Academic institutions should ensure that students and scholars from China feel welcomed, integrated, and protected, Human Rights Watch said.

    “President Xi’s moves to strangle academic freedom inside China makes it all the more urgent to ensure that students and scholars of and from China can enjoy academic freedom abroad,” Richardson said. “Institutions can demonstrate their commitment to peaceful, critical expression by adopting smart, robust protections, and keeping their gates open to all who seek academic freedom.”


    Resisting Chinese Government Efforts to Undermine Academic Freedom Abroad
    A Code of Conduct for Colleges, Universities, and Academic Institutions Worldwide

    Large numbers of students, scholars, scientists, and professors from China now study or work at colleges and universities abroad. In recent years, Chinese government authorities have grown bolder in trying to shape global perceptions of China on campuses and in academic institutions outside China. These authorities have sought to influence academic discussions, monitor overseas students from China, censor scholarly inquiry, or otherwise interfere with academic freedom.

    Human Rights Watch investigations found that the Chinese government attempts to restrict academic freedom beyond its borders. To counter such pressures, ensure the integrity of academic institutions, and protect the academic freedom and free expression rights of students, scholars, and administrators, particularly those who work on China or are from China, Human Rights Watch proposes the following Code of Conduct. While the impetus for and focus of the provisions that follow is pressure emanating from China, academic institutions should apply the same principles to interactions with all governments that threaten academic freedom on their campuses.

    All institutions of higher education should:

    Speak out for academic freedom. Publicly commit to supporting academic freedom and freedom of expression through public statements at the highest institutional levels, institutional policies, and internal guidelines. Explicitly recognize threats posed to academic freedom and freedom of expression by the Chinese government seeking to shape discussions, teaching, and scholarship on campus. Reaffirm a commitment to freedom of inquiry, enabling scholars and students to freely conduct research, and make clear that opposing direct and indirect censorship pressures or retaliation by third parties, including national and foreign governments, is integral to academic freedom.
    Strengthen academic freedom on campus. Emphasize the commitments and policies in support of academic freedom in student orientation, faculty hiring, handbooks and honor codes, and public gatherings. To avoid self-censorship or retaliation for stating opinions, academic institutions should publicize a policy that classroom discussions are meant to stay on campus, and never to be reported to foreign missions.
    Counter threats to academic freedom. Encourage students and faculty members to recognize that direct and indirect censorship pressures, threats, or acts of retaliation by Chinese government authorities or their agents against students or scholars for what they write or say threaten academic freedom. Develop and implement effective mechanisms, such as an ombudsperson, to whom such pressures, threats, or acts of retaliation can be privately or anonymously reported.
    Record incidents of Chinese government infringement of academic freedom. Actively track instances of direct or indirect Chinese government harassment, surveillance, or threats on campuses. Where warranted, they should be reported to law enforcement. Report annually the number and nature of these kinds of incidents.
    Join with other academic institutions to promote research in China. Academic institutions should work in concert, including by making public statements and complaints where appropriate, in the event of unwarranted visa denials or prolonged delays for research in China. Academic institutions should consider joint actions against Chinese government entities in response to visa denials or other obstacles to academic research.
    Offer flexibility for scholars and students working on China. Ensure that a scholar’s career advancement or a student’s progress will not be compromised if their research has to change direction due to Chinese government restrictions on research or access to source material in China. Institutions should consider steps, such as granting the scholar or student extra time to finish their research, supporting alternative research strategies, or publishing using pseudonyms, in the face of Chinese government obstacles, harassment, or reprisals. Academic institutions should be open to alternative research strategies when funding or receiving funds for academic work that has been rejected by a Chinese entity. Funders and review boards should provide comparable flexibility.
    Reject Confucius Institutes. Refrain from having Confucius Institutes on campuses, as they are fundamentally incompatible with a robust commitment to academic freedom. Confucius Institutes are extensions of the Chinese government that censor certain topics and perspectives in course materials on political grounds, and use hiring practices that take political loyalty into consideration.
    Monitor Chinese government-linked organizations. Require that all campus organizations, including the Chinese Students and Scholars Association (CSSA), that receive funding or support from Chinese diplomatic missions and other Chinese government-linked entities, report such information.
    Promote academic freedom of students and scholars from China. Inform students and scholars from China that they are not required to join any organizations, and help mentor and support them to ensure they can enjoy full academic freedom.
    Disclose all Chinese government funding. Publicly disclose, on an annual basis, all sources and amounts of funding that come directly or indirectly from the Chinese government. Publish lists of all projects and exchanges with Chinese government counterparts.
    Ensure academic freedom in exchange programs and on satellite campuses. Exchange programs and satellite campuses in China should only be undertaken after the completion of a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese counterpart that has been transparently discussed by relevant faculty members and ensures the protection of academic freedom, including control over hiring and firing, and the curriculum.
    Monitor impact of Chinese government interference in academic freedom. Work with academic institutions, professional associations, and funders to systematically study and regularly publicly report on: a) areas of research that have received less attention because of fears about access; b) decline of on-campus discussions of topics deemed sensitive by the Chinese government, such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre; c) efforts by academic institutions to curtail Chinese government threats to academic freedom; and 4) strategies collectively pursued by institutions to defend and promote academic freedom.

    #Chine #liberté_académique #surveillance #espions #étranger #censure #auto-censure

    Ajouté à cette métaliste sur la censure et le monde académique :

  • Italian academics fear for freedom after League attack on book

    Author concerned about lack of pushback after Italy’s far-right governing party demanded removal of critical book from reading list

    #censure #Italie #université #liberté_académique #livres #

    malheureusement #paywall

    Le titre du livre n’apparaît pas dans l’extrait, mais il s’agit peut-être de celui-ci ?


  • Dozens of university dons concerned Singapore’s anti-fake news laws will stifle academic freedom

    Over 80 academics from around the world have written to the Singapore government expressing concerns over how recently proposed laws against online falsehoods could threaten academic freedom in the city state.

    The Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill, tabled in parliament on April 1, has raised eyebrows for the sweeping powers it would hand the government.

    In their letter, sent to Singapore’s education minister on April 11 and made available to the media on April 13, the academics focused on how the proposed powers to police falsehoods could backfire on researchers. “The legislation may also set negative precedents, with knock-on effects on the global academy,” wrote the academics.

    They noted that much of academic work focuses on disputing apparently established “facts”, which are confirmed or denied through research, and continuously reappraised as new data becomes available.

    #université #censure #liberté_d'expression #liberté_académique #Singapour #anti-fake-news #loi

  • #Columbia_University cancels panel on Turkey due to pressure from Turkish government”

    Colombia University effectively canceled a panel discussion on Turkey two days before the event, citing “academic standards.”

    Steven A. Cook, one of the panelists and a senior fellow for Middle East & Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, has tweeted that the decision was made after “the university came under pressure form Turkish government.

    “Disappointed to learn that @Columbia ‘s Provost effectively canceled this panel two days before the event, citing “academic standards.” One can only assume that the university came under pressure form the govt of #Turkey and its supporters. Terrible precedent,” Cook tweeted.

    The panel discussion was about the Turkish governments increasing authoritarian tendencies and human rights violations in the country since a coup attmept on July 15, 2016.

    Daniel Balson invited the university administratrion to explain “what (specifically) about this panel does not meet its “academic standards.”

    “This is stunning – @Columbia should be pressed to explain what (specifically) about this panel does not meet its “academic standards”. If they think the facts are wrong they should publicly correct. Too serious a precedent to ignore. @KachaniS, @ColumbiaVPTL @ColumbiaSpec,” Balson tweeted.

    #université #Turquie #censure #liberté_académique #liberté_d'expression #USA #Etats-Unis #standards_académiques

  • Sciences Po censure une #conférence sur l’apartheid israélien

    Le 20 mars 2019 devait se tenir à Sciences Po un événement sur l’apartheid israélien dans le cadre de l’Israeli Apartheid Week. Deux jours avant l’événement, Sciences Po a décidé d’annuler la conférence. Voilà la réponse des organisateurs-rices à cette censure politique. Tou-te-s au 96 boulevard Raspail le 20 mars à 19h, en soutien au peuple palestinien et contre la répression !

    #apartheid #Israël #Sciences_po #palestine #France

    • Une université suisse doit annuler la « fête de la haine » anti-juive

      Demande d’annulation de la « fête de la haine » d’Israël à la Haute Ecole pédagogique Vaudoise

      Monsieur le recteur Guillaume Vanhulst,

      J’ai appris par un article publié par le centre Simon Wiesenthal, qu’HEP Lausanne a reprogrammé (sous un autre titre (1), mais sans changer le contenu), une formation antisioniste que les autorités vaudoises avaient fait annuler en octobre pour cause de « déséquilibre pédagogique ».

      C’est une formation politique clairement partisane, qui entre en conflit frontal avec les Valeurs et la Charte éthique "favorisant le développement d’une réflexion critique", et le souci d’une "approche critique parmi la diversité des courants de pensée dans le cadre de ses activités de formation et de recherche" énoncées par HEP (2).

      La formation, en effet, est composée de virulents activistes anti-israéliens engagés dans des campagnes antisémites, « qui nient le droit à l’autodétermination du peuple juif, et sont déterminés à détruire l’Etat juif » précise le Centre Simon Wiesenthal, et la lecture du nom des intervenants le confirme au-delà du moindre doute (3).

      Je ne pense pas qu’une "fête de la haine" qui vise à répandre l’idéologie anti-israélienne aux lycéens au travers de la formation que vous assurez aux professeurs, ait sa place dans une école dont la mission est de transmettre la tolérance et l’ouverture par la connaissance.

      La délégitimation d’Israël porte en elle un fruit unique : celui de la haine. Aucun autre.

      Et cette formation à la haine d’Israël est en contradiction profonde avec la charte éthique d’HEP.

      Je vous demande en conséquence et très respectueusement, monsieur le recteur, d’annuler définitivement cette formation des enseignants à la délégitimation d’Israël, ainsi que toute autre formation future qui ne serait pas honnêtement et fondamentalement équilibrée dans son esprit et ses objectifs, et qui ne prévoirait pas la présence d’académiciens pro-Israéliens et anti-Israéliens réputés en nombre égal.

      Veuillez accepter, monsieur le recteur, l’expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs.

      (1) Le titre initial était « 1948 : connaître et enseigner la Nakba palestinienne » et cela s’appelle maintenant : « 1948 : les origines du problème des réfugiés palestiniens »

      (2) https://www.hepl.ch/cms/accueil/mission-et-organisation/valeurs-et-vision/valeurs.html

      Elias Khoury, écrivain libanais qui a rejoint l’organisation du Fatah en 1967,
      Ilan Pappe, activiste anti-israélien d’extrême gauche, qui a soutenu la thèse inventée d’un étudiant, Teddy Katz, du massacre par des juifs d’un village palestinien, et continue à la soutenir bien qu’elle ait été rétractée par son auteur et démentie par un comité universitaire.
      Elias Sanbar, actuel ambassadeur palestinien auprès de l’UNESCO,
      Et Shlomo Sand, auteur de plusieurs livres violemment anti-israéliens.


    • 1948 dans le respect de l’#objectivité scientifique

      Face à une série de #pressions et d’informations erronées liées à la tenue du cours "1948 : Aux origines du problème des #réfugiés_palestiniens", le Comité de direction de la HEP Vaud réaffirme son attachement au respect des principes scientifiques et éthiques fondamentaux, moteurs de sa #liberté_académique.

      Le cours de #formation_continue destiné aux enseignants secondaires d’histoire, intitulé "#1948 : Aux origines du problème des réfugiés palestiniens" fait l’objet, depuis l’automne 2018, d’une série de pressions et d’informations erronées quant à son contenu, ses intervenants pressentis ou de prétendues intentions politiques malveillantes.

      La direction de la #HEP_Vaud, en accord avec les organisateurs du cours, a pris les dispositions nécessaires pour garantir à ce cours une approche respectueuse de la #neutralité_politique et de l’#objectivité_scientifique légitimement attendues de l’institution qui entend en assumer l’entière responsabilité.

      Elle rappelle que ce cours, non public et destiné exclusivement à des spécialistes de la didactique de l’histoire, devra se dérouler dans un climat de réflexion, de respect, d’ouverture et d’échanges académiques. La HEP Vaud proscrira toute approche polémique, tendancieuse, partisane ou arbitraire du sujet.

      « Je sais à quel point le fait d’aborder dans les curriculums de la HEP Vaud des thématiques vives peut susciter des réactions », souligne le recteur Guillaume Vanhulst. « La seule réponse que la HEP Vaud puisse apporter à des interprétations subjectives, voire à des tentatives de manipulation et d’#intimidation, repose sur un strict respect des #principes_scientifiques et éthiques fondamentaux que la Loi sur la HEP lui confère. »

      La compétence à respecter ces principes est à la racine d’un droit fondamental que le Comité de direction de la HEP Vaud entend promouvoir : la liberté académique.


  • Au rectorat de Dijon on peut croiser Big Brother

    Une enseignante y est convoquée après avoir publié un texte ironique sur un site indépendant à propos de la prestation télévisée d’Emmanuel Macron de la semaine passée.

    Le rectorat de l’Académie de Dijon veille à ce que l’ordre règne en Macronie. Une professeure de Lettres au lycée le Castel de la capitale bourguignonne, Sophie Carrouge, y est convoquée par la direction des ressources humaines après avoir publié sur un site indépendant, Disjoncter info, un texte ironique après la prestation télévisée d’Emmanuel Macron la semaine passée. Datée du 13 décembre la convocation évoquant directement la publication de ce texte stipule laconiquement « Je vous demande donc de bien vouloir vous présenter à l’entretien prévu le jeudi 20 décembre à 15 heures 30 ». 
    « Le grand chef blanc, écrivait-elle, a parlé treize minutes pour apaiser le ressentiment de millions d’indiens. Le grand chef blanc, au début de sa palabre, a prévenu que si les millions d’indiens continuaient de lui courir sur le calumet, il allait être intraitable pour rétablir l’ordre. Il en va de l’autorité du grand tipi de l’Élysée. Le grand chef blanc accorde une part de bison fumé supplémentaire pour les fêtes et chaque mois, les vieux indiens recevront une galette de maïs et une bouteille d’eau de feu ». Et plus loin, « Emmanuel Macron pendant treize minutes a montré son vrai visage, mains sur la table, yeux rivés au prompteur avec l’empathie du dompteur pour le lion. Saute dans le cerceau, français en gilet jaune ou pas, et ferme ta gueule. »
    Au pays de Voltaire le rectorat ne goûte guère la charge. Ce qui a toutes les allures d’un véritable abus de pouvoir a vivement fait réagir les personnels enseignants, administratifs et les parents d’élèves du lycée concerné. Appelant à un rassemblement aujourd’hui à 15 h15 devant le rectorat. Ils écrivent dans un communiqué :

    « Nous, personnels de l’Éducation Nationale, parents d’élèves, représentants syndicaux du lycée le Castel, avons appris avec consternation la convocation de l’une de nos collègues par le rectorat, suite à l’écriture d’une tribune dans une publication dijonnaise. Nous l’assurons collectivement de tout notre soutien. Dans la période de mobilisation actuelle contre les différentes réformes dans l’Éducation nationale, une telle convocation apparaît comme une volonté de faire pression sur l’enseignante et de faire taire toute expression de contestation. Un tel contre-feu ne nous empêchera pas de nous mobiliser contre les réformes en cours. Où est la « liberté d’expression » dans « l’école de la confiance » ?

    • Voltaire, Voltaire, tout de suite les grands noms !

      On est aussi le pays de
      – louis IX, inventeur de l’étoile jaune,
      – henry III
      – napoléons I et III
      – adolf thiers
      – louis faidherbe
      – philippe pétain
      – jules moch
      . . . . . . . .
      Sans oublier quelques sociétés savantes, comme la société d’anthropologie de Paris.
      Une liste serait intéressante à constituer.

      En ce moment, on a un grenadeur, qui se pense comme mussolini enfant, et qui va lancer son métaplan national Post-it.

    • Une professeure de Dijon convoquée par son rectorat après avoir critiqué Emmanuel Macron

      L’enseignante a rédigé une tribune virulente en réaction à l’allocution du chef de l’Etat qui répondait à la colère des « gilets jaunes ».

      « Emmanuel Macron est terne, Emmanuel Macron est vieux, Emmanuel Macron n’est pas un président. Emmanuel Macron est un commercial arrivé au pouvoir par le pouvoir des urnes funéraires. » Cette attaque en règle contre le chef de l’Etat vaut à son auteure, Sophie Carrouge, une professeure du lycée Le Castel de Dijon (Côte-d’Or), d’être convoquée par son rectorat, jeudi 20 décembre. C’est ce qu’a appris franceinfo auprès de l’académie.

      Dans cette tribune publiée sur le site dijoncter.info mercredi 12 décembre, deux jours après l’allocution du président de la République, la professeure de lettres ironise sur la forme du discours présidentiel : « Hugh grand chef blanc, tu as bien parlé et tu as restauré l’autorité du conseil des anciens, tous ces chauves à grandes bouches qui parlent, parlent et comprennent qu’un bon indien est un indien mort ou grabataire. » Sophie Carrouge, qui milite pour la défense des lycéens sans-papiers, explique à franceinfo avoir réagi, « ivre de rage », « au mot ’immigration’ lâché par Emmanuel Macron » dans son discours.
      « L’angle d’attaque possible, c’est le droit de réserve »

      « Je me doute que l’angle d’attaque possible, c’est le droit de réserve », déclare Sophie Carrouge, qui fait valoir sa liberté d’expression. « Ils vont sans doute m’attaquer sur le fait que je mentionne ma profession et mon établissement. » "Mais chez les enseignants, ce droit de réserve n’est pas le même que dans la police par exemple, il est jurisprudentiel", affirme-t-elle.

      Et la professeure de dénoncer « un contexte très inquiétant ». Selon elle, le ministre de l’Education, Jean-Michel Blanquer, « serre la vis de manière très spectaculaire ». L’enseignante dénonce le projet de loi sur l’école en préparation et les sanctions disciplinaires qu’il prévoit à l’encontre des enseignants qui dénigreraient l’institution. « L’Etat est en train de bétonner le système pour restreindre la liberté d’expression de chaque fonctionnaire », fustige ainsi la professeure.
      « C’est prendre le risque de sanctions disciplinaires »

      Laurent Rabbé, avocat au barreau de Paris, spécialiste du droit de la fonction publique, estime que l’enseignante aura du mal à faire valoir ses arguments. « Au titre de ses obligations statutaires, un professeur de la fonction publique d’Etat a un devoir de réserve sur la politique mise en œuvre par sa tutelle, a fortiori par le chef de l’Etat », explique-t-il à franceinfo. Le juriste estime que le rectorat pourrait légitimement lancer des poursuites disciplinaires contre Sophie Carrouge pour manquement à cette obligation. « Tenir de tels propos publiquement en se présentant en tant qu’enseignante, c’est prendre le risque de sanctions disciplinaires, tranche le conseil. Individuellement, c’est un choix, c’est un risque à prendre ».

      En attendant, des collègues et des parents d’élèves du lycée Le Castel ont apporté leur soutien à Sophie Carrouge dans un communiqué. Ils appellent même à manifester devant le rectorat, jeudi après-midi, au moment où l’enseignante sera convoquée. Contactée par franceinfo, l’académie n’a souhaité faire aucun commentaire.
      Pas de sanction mais un rappel

      La convocation s’est soldée par « un rappel au devoir de réserve », indique à franceinfo Isabelle Cheviet, secrétaire départementale du Snes-FSU de Côte d’Or. La teneur de l’entrevue était « une incitation à la plus extrême prudence », confirme Sophie Carrouge. Pas de sanction donc pour l’enseignante. « Je peux continuer à écrire mais je n’écrirai plus : ’Je suis enseignante’ », commente la professeure. Le rectorat a rappelé qu’"un fonctionnaire ne doit pas critiquer sa hiérarchie et l’Etat employeur", confirme la syndicaliste. Mais de conclure : « Si elle avait seulement signer de son nom, sans mentionner sa profession et son établissement, ça passait. »


  • Discussion sur twitter autour du fait que la #Oxford_Union ("students society") de l’#université de #Oxford ont invité #Steve_Bannon à donner une conférence...
    voici l’annonce :

    Voici une première réaction sur twitter :

    @OxfordUnion has invited Steve Bannon to speak this Friday-16th November. You guys can’t find anyone better than an anti Semitic, racist, domestic abuser to speak? Stop normalizing fascists @UniofOxford #Oxford

    Et la réponse de l’université de Oxford :

    Hi Samira, The Oxford Union is independent of the University of Oxford, and Oxford Brookes University, and as an organisation we have no power to regulate their activities.

    Et dans un deuxième tweet :

    While the University has no involvement, we appreciate opinions often differ on the speakers invited and would add that students can attend these talks to challenge speakers, rather than agree with them.


    Et la réaction de #Polly_Wilkins :

    This seems to be a theme whereby universities take no responsibility for the hate speech and normalisation of fascism resulting from the platforms given to racists, anti-Semites, and misogynists when these people are invited by students.

    If a university will not stand up against rising fascism then it suggests it has no interests in defending itself. There is no possibility for academic freedom under fascism.

    #liberté_d'expression #fascisme #normalisation #banalisation #xénophobie #racisme #liberté_académique

  • University alerts students to danger of leftwing essay

    Prevent critics slam Reading for labelling ‘mainstream’ academic text as extremist.
    An essay by a prominent leftwing academic that examines the ethics of socialist revolution has been targeted by a leading university using the government’s counter-terrorism strategy.

    Students at the University of Reading have been told to take care when reading an essay by the late Professor Norman Geras, in order to avoid falling foul of Prevent.

    Third-year politics undergraduates have been warned not to access it on personal devices, to read it only in a secure setting, and not to leave it lying around where it might be spotted “inadvertently or otherwise, by those who are not prepared to view it”. The alert came after the text was flagged by the university as “sensitive” under the Prevent programme.

    The essay, listed as “essential” reading for the university’s Justice and Injustice politics module last year, is titled Our Morals: The Ethics of Revolution. Geras was professor emeritus of government at the University of Manchester until his death in 2013. He rejected terrorism but argued that violence could be justified in the case of grave social injustices.

    Waqas Tufail, a senior lecturer in criminology at Leeds Beckett University who wrote a report about Prevent last year, described the case at Reading as “hugely concerning”. Another Prevent expert, Fahid Qurashi of Staffordshire University, said the move showed how anti-terrorism legislation is “being applied far beyond its purview”.
    Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
    Read more

    Ilyas Nagdee, black students’ officer for the National Union of Students, said the case again highlighted “misunderstanding of the [counter-terrorism guidance].”

    The strategy, itself controversial, is meant to divert people before they offend, and requires universities to monitor students’ and academics’ access to material that could be considered extremist. The scheme has repeatedly come under fire since its remit was expanded by the coalition government in 2011. Critics argue that it has curtailed academic freedom by encouraging universities to cancel appearances by extremist speakers and for fostering a “policing culture” in higher education.

    Tufail added: “This text was authored by a mainstream, prominent academic who was well-regarded in his field, who was a professor at Manchester for many years and whose obituary was published in the Guardian. This case raises huge concerns about academic freedom and students’ access to material, and it raises wider questions about the impact of Prevent.” The text was identified as potentially sensitive by an academic convening the course. “This is almost worse because it means academics are now engaging in self-censorship,” Tufail said.

    Nagdee said: “Prevent fundamentally alters the relationship between students and educators, with those most trusted with our wellbeing and development forced to act as informants. As this case shows, normal topics that are discussed as a matter of course in our educational spaces are being treated as criminal”.

    The University of Reading said: “Lecturers must inform students in writing if their course includes a text deemed security-sensitive, and then list which students they expect will have to access the material.

    “As laid out in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, the University of Reading has put policies in place to take steps to prevent students being drawn into terrorism.” One aspect of this is to safeguard staff and students who access security-sensitive materials legitimately and appropriately used for study or research.”

    #université #it_has_begun #UK #Angleterre #surveillance #censure #gauche #droite #Reading #Prevent_programme #terrorisme #anti-terrorisme #violence #liberté_d'expression #liberté_académique #extrémisme #Norman_Geras

  • The false equivalence of academic freedom and free speech. Defending academic integrity in the age of white supremacy, colonial nostalgia, and anti-intellectualism

    While much attention has been paid to controversies over free speech and academic freedom related to university campus debates, events, and activities, I demonstrate that higher education is also under threat by the undermining of academic publishing ethics, integrity and standards, as well as what counts as scholarly rigor. The rise of problematic rhetoric and overtures as well as the circumvention of academic publishing standards pose threats to academia writ large, whereby academia is threatened from not just from outside but also from within the academy when some academics themselves participate in the erosion of academic integrity. These new threats have arisen because there are increasing attempts to provide a ‘scholarly’ veneer to what are otherwise hateful ideologies. At a time when there are concerted efforts to decolonize academia, there is concurrent rise of colonial nostalgia and white supremacy among some academics, who are supported by and end up lending support to the escalating far-right movements globally who misuse notions of free speech and academic freedom to further their agendas and attack higher education. Critical scholars thus need to hold accountable fellow academics, academic publishers, and universities in order to protect academic integrity and scholarship in an era when free speech is misused to silence the pursuit of scholarly rigor and ethical engagement. The stakes are high at the current conjuncture and require greater introspection and intervention within academia to counter the dangerous trends of anti-intellectualism, corporatized academia, and colonial violence.

    #liberté_académique #liberté_d'expression #université #édition_scientifique #publications_scientifiques #suprématie_blanche #colonialisme #décolonialisme #nostalgie_coloniale #extrême_droite #anti-intellectualisme #violence
    cc @tchaala_la @isskein

  • Reçu via la mailing-list geotamtam

    Bâillonner les universitaires

    Dans l’affaire de #censure politique de Jacques Sapir par la coupole d’#OpenEdition, depuis le 26 septembre, le silence des universitaires et de leurs associations et syndicats, depuis trois semaines, est impressionnant. A quelques exceptions près : http://libertescheries.blogspot.fr/2017/09/menace-sur-la-pensee-libre-le-blog-de.html
    Dans l’affaire certes plus récente de censure, d’un autre type, mais tout aussi politique du colloque sur l’islamophobie à Lyon 2, les réactions de la communauté universitaire et de ses syndicats, sur le plan national, se fait encore cruellement attendre : https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/051017/un-colloque-universitaire-sur-l-islamophobie-annule-sous-la-pression
    La somme des lâchetés individuelles risque de se payer collectivement... au prix fort !
    Voici, la suite de l’histoire, au concret dans un établissement malheureusement toujours pionnier sur beaucoup de domaines : une procédure générale de subordination de toute expression publique des enseignants-chercheurs ainsi soumis au bon vouloir des services centraux de communication et du président de l’université de Strasbourg. Elle a fait, avant-hier, l’objet d’une lettre du président à l’ensemble de l’université que vous trouverez ci-dessous (après mon message) et d’un document de procédure que vous trouverez ci-joint (en PDF) ; lisez le, vraiment, c’est édifiant !
    Naturellement, cette procédure porte atteinte à l’indépendance des enseignants-chercheurs et l’on retrouve la question que je viens de poser aux collègues membres du comité scientifique d’OpenEdition : http://rumor.hypotheses.org/4121/comment-page-1#comment-105984
    « Chers membres du comité scientifique d’Openedition, que pensez-vous de ces « opinions » qui s’expriment à votre sujet dans nos textes normatifs et instances républicaines : la Convention européenne des droits l’homme prescrivant, selon la jurisprudence de la Cour, « la possibilité pour les universitaires d’exprimer librement leurs opinions, fussent-elles polémiques ou impopulaires, dans les domaines relevant de leurs recherches, de leur expertise professionnelle et de leur compétence » (CEDH 27 mai 2014 n°346/04 et 39779/04) ; les principes fondamentaux reconnus par les lois de la république, dont celui de l’indépendance des universitaires, selon la jurisprudence du Conseil Constitutionnel français (CC n° 83-165 DC du 20 janvier 1984 et n° 94-355 du 10 janvier 1995) ; l’article L.111-1/al. 4 du Code de la propriété intellectuelle qui déroge, pour les universitaires, au statut général de la fonction publique ; l’article L.411-3 du code de la recherche qui protège l’autonomie de la démarche scientifique ; les articles L.123-9, L.141-6, L.952-2 du code de l’éducation qui rappellent une norme d’indépendance et de liberté d’expression des enseignants, chercheurs et enseignants-chercheurs ? »
    J’attends leur réponse en ligne... mais en attendant, il faut bien reconnaître que ce qui est arrivé à Strasbourg est le point d’aboutissement logique d’une histoire déjà longue... même en la considérant dans sa brève temporalité des derniers mois :
    Février 2016 : procès contre Bernard Mezzadri, au motif de ce que l’on pourrait appeler un "crime de lèse-majesté", par raillerie, contre le premier ministre Valls ; le parquet et l’université d’Avignon, partie civile (sans autorisation du CA), sont déboutés (mais celui qui était président de l’université au moment des faits, 27 mai 2015, est nommé Recteur par le gouvernement Valls, en décembre 2015) : https://blogs.mediapart.fr/pascal-maillard/blog/180216/relaxe-de-bernard-mezzadri-reaction-de-l-universitaire-et-analyse-de
    Décembre 2016 : déclarations de la présidente de la région d’Ile-de-France annonçant son refus de financer les études sur le genre, les inégalités et les discriminations ; comme le titre Libération : « Valérie Pécresse coupe les bourses aux études de genre », Libération, 15.12.2016 ; cette décision interrompt les finances des thèses de doctorats et des recherches professionnelles sur ce domaine du genre et plus largement de l’intersectionnalité (cf. ci-après) : http://www.liberation.fr/direct/element/valerie-pecresse-coupe-les-bourses-aux-etudes-de-genre_54010
    Janvier 2017 : décision politico-administrative de la direction de Science Po Paris d’interdire la conférence d’un chercheur sur la Russie de Poutine et ses relations avec les activités terroristes par crainte de retombées négatives pour l’établissement dans ses relations universitaires avec ce pays ; c’est précisément l’argument de "l’image de l’établissement" qui est aujourd’hui utilisé par les dirigeants de l’Université de Strasbourg ; cf. « Sciences Po annule une conférence sur la Russie de Poutine », Le Monde, 31.01.2017 : http://www.lemonde.fr/campus/article/2017/02/01/sciences-po-annule-une-conference-sur-la-russie-de-poutine_5072473_4401467.h
    Mai 2017 : menaces politiques contre un colloque en Ile de France sur l’intersectionnalité dans les recherches en éducation, intersectionnalité des imbrications classe/race/genre qui n’est plus bon chic bon genre depuis la décision de Valérie Pécresse : suivies de blocages administratifs rectoraux visant à l’annulation pour motifs de troubles à l’ordre public, puis contournement des blocages par réorganisation différente et restreinte du colloque sous haute protection policière ; voir à ce sujet l’analyse de Didier Fassin : http://bibliobs.nouvelobs.com/idees/20170518.OBS9602/comment-un-colloque-sur-l-intersectionnalite-a-failli-etre-censu
    Septembre 2017 : censure politique de Jacques Sapir par la coupole d’OpenEdition, fermeture du blog, depuis le 26 septembre 2017 au motif, comme dans l’affaire Mezzadri, de ce que l’on peut appeler un "crime de lèse majesté" à l’encontre du président Macron, pour lui avoir donné leçon notamment sur le concept de laïcité (dernier billet avant censure du blog) et aussi de l’image très "scientifique" de la plateforme de blogs (!) un peu comme l’image de l’université à Strasbourg ; voir par exemple le débat en cours dans la blogosphère notamment ici : http://rumor.hypotheses.org/4121/comment-page-1#comment-105984 et là (surtout dans les commentaires après le mauvais billet) : http://affordance.typepad.com//mon_weblog/2017/09/hypothese-sapir-en-pire-.html
    Octobre 2017 : fin de la procédure judiciaire dans le cadre d’une "procédure-baillon" intentée par l’entreprise Chimirec contre Denis Mazeaud, professeur de droit commentant dans une revue scientifique, une décision de justice... certes la justice lui donne raison, mais comme le remarque P.Robert-Diard (Le Monde) : "La vigilance des juges face à ce type de procédures ne rassure toutefois pas complètement les universitaires. Comme le soulignait le professeur de droit Denis Mazeaud en février 2017 dans la revue La Gazette du Palais au lendemain du jugement de relaxe deLaurent Neyret, « ce qui doit retenir l’attention, c’est le message subliminal adressé à tous les enseignants-chercheurs qui n’ont pas peur de déranger, de s’engager, de faire leur métier (...) et d’exprimer leurs opinions sans concession en toute liberté et en parfaite indépendance. Attention, leur est-il dit, il pourrait vous en coûter très cher et pas seulement en frais d’avocat ! »" : http://sociologuesdusuperieur.org/article/procedures-baillons-la-cour-dappel-de-paris-au-soutien-de-la
    Octobre 2017 : ... menaces politiques contre un colloque sur l’islamophobie à Lyon 2 ; sous la pression de l’extrême droite... là c’est plus simple : le colloque a été purement et simplement annulé : https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/051017/un-colloque-universitaire-sur-l-islamophobie-annule-sous-la-pression
    5 Octobre 2017 : procédure générale de subordination de toute expression publique des enseignants-chercheurs de l’université de Strasbourg, ainsi soumis au bon vouloir des services centraux de communication et du président de l’université de Strasbourg. Elle a fait, ce 5 octobre, l’objet d’une lettre du président à l’ensemble de l’université (ci-dessous) et d’un document de procédure édifiant (ci-joint en PDF) ! Plus aucune communication avec les journalistes sans prévenir 10 jours avant le Service de la communication, le Directeur de la composante, le Correspondant communication de la composante et obtenir leurs accords ou à J-2 de la "date prévisionnelle" ! CQFD
    S’agissante de l’analyse juridique de cette note de service à l’université de Strasbourg, je ne peux que dupliquer l’analyse faite sur une autre note de service, d’un autre établissement et à un autre sujet, mais équivalente sur le plan juridique, dans un article récent ( d’ailleurs hautement scientifique puisqu’il est publié sur OpenEdition ! ...dans Rfsic-11 : http://rfsic.revues.org/3194#tocto2n4 )
    "24 - Il s’agit d’une note de service qui, sur le plan juridique, comme le rappel le « Guide de légistique » publié par la Documentation Française et le site de Légifrance29, a la même valeur qu’une circulaire : « Sous des appellations diverses - circulaires, directives, notes de service, instructions, etc. - les administrations communiquent avec leurs agents et les usagers pour exposer les principes d’une politique, fixer les règles de fonctionnement des services et commenter ou orienter l’application des lois et règlements. Si le terme « circulaire » est le plus souvent employé, la dénomination de ces documents qui suivent un régime juridique principalement déterminé par leur contenu n’a par elle-même aucune incidence juridique : une « circulaire » n’a ni plus ni moins de valeur qu’une « note de service ». ».
    25 - Or, ajoute le même guide « une circulaire peut être déférée au juge administratif, y compris lorsqu’elle se borne à interpréter la législation ou la réglementation, dès lors que les dispositions qu’elle comporte présentent un caractère impératif (CE, Sect., 18 décembre 2002, Mme Duvignères, n° 233618), ce qui est le plus fréquemment le cas. Le juge censure alors – c’est le motif le plus fréquent de censure – celles de ces dispositions que le ministre n’était pas compétent pour prendre, non seulement lorsque la circulaire comprend des instructions contraires au droit en vigueur, mais aussi lorsqu’elle ajoute des règles nouvelles. » (nous soulignons). Ce qui vaut pour un ministre valant pour un directeur d’établissement public, et le caractère impératif dans le cas de cette note étant explicite, la conclusion paraît évidente : la création d’une norme d’obligation dans cette note devrait être jugée illégale, mais l’illégalité ne pourra être constatée par le juge administratif que s’il est saisi…"
    En faudra-t-il davantage pour que les universitaires renoncent individuellement et collectivement à la stratégie de la tortue ? ... que les sociétés savantes, les associations professionnelles, les syndicats du secteur, les revues scientifiques, les composantes d’universités s’expriment ?

    La suite de l’histoire le dira...
    Bien cordialement,
    Jérôme Valluy
    PS : ce message est public, merci de le retransmettre sur toutes les listes de diffusions, blogs et réseaux sociaux que vous souhaitez informer...
    De : <president@unistra.fr>
    Objet : Nouvelle procédure pour les relations avec la presse de l’Université de Strasbourg
    Date : 5 octobre 2017 11:15:09 UTC+2
    À : <congresuniversite@unistra.fr>, <dir-comp@unistra.fr>, <dir-labo@unistra.fr>
    Répondre à : <president@unistra.fr>

    Chers et chères collègues,
    Mesdames et Messieurs,

    L’impact médiatique d’un événement, d’une action, d’une prise de position par un membre de la communauté universitaire dans la presse peut avoir des conséquences importantes sur l’image générale de l’université, positivement ou négativement.
    C’est pourquoi le service communication a formalisé une procédure relative aux relations presse, que je vous adresse aujourd’hui. Cette démarche fait suite à l’une des recommandations de l’audit consacré à la fonction communication, qui préconise que le cabinet de la présidence et le service communication soient a minima informés de toute démarche en direction de la presse, ce qui permettra aussi de mieux suivre et repérer les retombées presse générées par ces actions.
    Cette procédure explique très clairement, en fonction des situations, comment procéder et quelle aide le service communication est en mesure de vous apporter.
    Merci d’accorder à cette nouvelle procédure toute l’attention nécessaire et d’informer vos collègues et collaborateurs de son existence et de la nécessité de la mettre en œuvre.
    Très cordialement,
    Michel Deneken
    Président de l’Université de Strasbourg
    Cabinet de la Présidence
    4 rue Blaise Pascal
    CS 90032
    67081 Strasbourg Cedex

    #université #liberté_académique #liberté_d'expression

  • Open Letter to EC President Jean-Claude Juncker

    From: John Palmer, #Pompeu_Fabra_University

    To: Jean-Claude Juncker, President, European Commission

    Date: 25 September 2017

    Dear President Juncker:

    I write to alert you to recent actions by the Spanish Government that affect research funds provided by the European Commission and infringe on fundamental rights guaranteed under international and European law. My interest in this matter stems from my current position as a Marie Skłodowska-Curie research fellow at Pompeu Fabra University (UPF) in Barcelona and, more importantly, as a person who cares about the rights of others and is horrified by the attack on democracy and liberty that is currently underway in the city and region in which I reside.

    On 20 September the Spanish Ministry of the Treasury and Public Function issued Order HFP/886/2017, freezing the finances of numerous public bodies in Catalonia, including those of Catalan public universities like UPF (see BOE-A-2017-10741). It appears from the Treasury’s order and from the regulatory structure on which it draws that it encompasses funds provided by the European Union (see Order PRE/2454/2015 of 20 November 2015, BOE-A-2015-12575). This fact was highlighted in a public statement issued by affected universities on 21 September, demanding that “Spanish authorities desist immediately from these unusual and unacceptable measures” (statement at http://goo.gl/gSiQvG). Universities will be able to gain access to their frozen funds only based on regular certification that they are not being used for activities contrary to the law or to the “decisions of the courts” (Order HFP/878/2017 of 15 September 2017, BOE-A-2017-10609), this latter reference clearly aimed at the upcoming independence referendum called for in a law passed by the Catalan Parliament but subsequently suspended by the Spanish Constitutional Court.

    Although it seems unlikely that university funds are being used for unlawful activities, this regular certification process imposes an absurd hurdle for research activities and significantly undermines academic freedom. This is particularly true in light of the harsh crackdown by Spanish authorities against activities even loosely connected to the independence referendum, with detentions and/or prosecutions not only of mayors and senior officials in the Catalan government, but even of private citizens who have helped to disseminate information about the referendum, and of the organizers of peaceful demonstrations against the crackdown. Given this backdrop, it is hard to imagine that the certification process for research funds will not place enormous pressure on academics to avoid criticizing the government or taking any position that might be seen as supporting the referendum, including simply speaking out in favor of the right to vote, freedom of expression and assembly, or self-determination.

    Although the funding issue is what affects me most directly as a Marie Skłodowska-Curie research fellow, my greatest concern is with the attack on democracy and human rights that the Spanish state is carrying out against my family, friends, colleagues, and neighbors throughout Catalonia. The prosecutions noted above have been accompanied by raids and detentions by Spain’s paramilitary police force, which has now sent thousands of troops with riot gear to the region. The government has threatened to arrest more members of the Catalan government, to shut down the press, and even to detain school principals. The charges being sought include sedition, which is punishable by many years in jail. These actions amount to serious violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, and other European and international instruments.

    One of the core virtues of the European Union is its ability to prevent this type of repression from occurring. Although there is a temptation to view the events here as internal matters of the Spanish state, the reality is that they directly threaten the European Union’s ideals and they add to the creeping spread of authoritarianism that we are witnessing around the world. I urge you to take whatever steps you can to stop the Spanish government from continuing on this course.

    Sincerely yours,

    John Palmer


    Reçu via la mailing-list geotamtam
    #Catalogne #référendum #indépendance #oppression #université #recherche #Espagne #liberté_académique #it_has_begun #chantage

  • Defending Academic Freedom in a Populist Age

    Universities nowadays often must fight for their independence on two fronts, against autocratic governments and private interests from without, and against the threat from within posed by fiefdoms of jargon and self-righteous coercion. But success ultimately depends on convincing fellow citizens that what may look like a battle for the privileged few is a battle for the benefit of all.

    #populisme #université #liberté_académique #indépendance #savoir

    • Academic Freedom and the Critical Task of the University

      Why is academic freedom essential to the idea of the university? To answer this question, let us first ask, what is academic freedom? Academic freedom is both a right and an obligation. It allows faculty to pursue lines of research and modes of thought without interference from government or other external authorities. It gives faculty rights of participation in the making of curricula and the governance of the university. Faculty may consider themselves individuals pursuing their lines of research, but they are also obligated to participate in governance, to foster and direct those institutional relations that secure the tasks of higher education, which include the task of the university to preserve and support critical thought, even when it is not in line with official views of the state or other external institutions.


  • La liberté de s’exprimer sur Israël en butte à des attaques dans les universités britanniques
    The Guardian, le 27 février 2017

    Signatures (plus de 200 profs britanniques): Prof Jonathan Rosenhead, Prof Conor Gearty, Prof Malcolm Levitt, Tom Hickey, Prof Dorothy Griffiths, Prof Moshé Machover, Sir Iain Chalmers, Prof Steven Rose, Prof Gilbert Achcar, Prof Penny Green, Prof Bill Bowring, Mike Cushman, Jim Zacune, Dr Jethro Butler, Dr Rashmi Varma, Dr John Moore, Dr Nour Ali, Prof Richard Hudson, Dr Tony Whelan, Dr Dina Matar, Prof Marian Hobson, Prof Tony Sudbery, Prof John Weeks, Prof Graham Dunn, Dr Toni Wright, Dr Rinella Cere, Prof Ian Parker, Dr Marina Carter, Dr Shirin M Rai, Andy Wynne, Prof David Pegg, Prof Erica Burman, Dr Nicola Pratt, Prof Joanna Bornat, Prof Richard Seaford, Dr Linda Milbourne, Dr Julian Saurin, Dr Nadia Naser-Najjab, Prof Elizabeth Dore, Prof Colin Eden, Dr Neil Davidson, Jaime Peschiera, Catherine Cobham, Prof Haim Bresheeth, Dr Uriel Orlow, Dr Saladin Meckled-Garcia, Dr Abdul B Shaikh, Dr Mark Leopold, Prof Michael Donmall, Prof Hamish Cunningham, Prof David Johnson, Dr Reem Abou-El-Fadl, Dr Luke Cooper, Prof Peter Gurney, Dr Adi Kuntsman, Prof Matthew Beaumont, Dr Teodora Todorova, Prof Natalie Fenton, Prof Richard Bornat, Dr Jeremy Landor, Dr John Chalcraft, Milly Williamson, David Mabb, Dr Judit Druks, Dr Charlie McGuire, Dr Gholam Khiabany, Glynn Kirkham, Dr Deirdre O’Neill, Dr Gavin Williams, Prof Marsha Rosengarten, Dr Debra Benita Shaw, Dr João Florêncio, Prof Stephen Keen, Dr Anandi Ramamurthy, Dr Thomas Mills, Dr Don Crewe, Prof Robert Wintemute, Andy Gossett, Prof Mark Boylan, Angela Mansi, Dr Paul Taylor, Tim Martin, Keith Hammond, Karolin Hijazi, Dr Kevin Hearty, Prof Daniel Katz, Dr Richard Pitt, Prof Ray Bush, Prof Glenn Bowman, Prof Craig Brandist, Prof Virinder S Kalra, Dr Yasmeen Narayan, Prof Michael Edwards, John Gilmore-Kavanagh, Prof Nadje Al-Ali, Prof Mick Dumper, Graham Topley, Dr Shuruq Naguib, Prof David Whyte, Peter Collins, Dr Andrew Chitty, Prof David Mond, Prof Leon Tikly, Dr Subir Sinha, Dr Mark Berry, Dr Gajendra Singh, Prof Elizabeth Cowie, Dr Richard Lane, Prof Martin Parker, Dr Aboobaker Dangor, Dr Siân Adiseshiah, Prof Dennis Leech, Dr Owen Clayton, Dr John Cowley, Prof Mona Baker, Dr Navtej Purewal, Prof Mica Nava, Prof Joy Townsend, Dr Alex Bellem, Dr Nat Queen, Gareth Dale, Prof Yosefa Loshitzky, Dr Rudi Lutz, Dr Oliver Smith, Tim Kelly, Prof Laleh Khalili, Prof Aneez Esmail, Fazila Bhimji, Prof Hilary Rose, Dr Brian Tweedale, Prof Julian Petley, Prof Richard Hyman, Dr Paul Watt, Nisha Kapoor, Prof Julian Townshend, Prof Roy Maartens, Dr Anna Bernard, Prof Martha Mundy, Prof Martin Atkinson, Dr Claude Baesens, Dr Marijn Nieuwenhuis, Dr Emma Heywood, Dr Matthew Malek, Prof Anthony Milton, Dr Paul O’Connell, Prof Malcolm Povey, Dr Jason Hickel, Dr Jo Littler, Prof Rosalind Galt, Prof Suleiman Shark, Dr Paula James, Dr Linda Pickard, Pat Devine, Dr Jennifer Fortune, Prof Chris Roberts, Dr Les Levidow, Dr Carlo Morelli, Prof David Byrne, Dr Nicholas Cimini, Prof John Smith, Prof Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, Dr Peter J King, Prof Bill Brewer, Prof Patrick Williams, Prof Daphne Hampson, Dr Wolfgang Deckers, Cliff Jones, Prof Luis Pérez-González, Prof Patrick Ainley, Dr Paul Kelemen, Prof Dee Reynolds, Dr Enam Al-Wer, Prof Hugh Starkey, Dr Anna Fisk, Prof Linda Clarke, Prof Klim McPherson, Cathy Malone, Prof Graham Dawson, Prof Colin Green, Prof Clément Mouhot, Prof S Sayyid, Prof William Raban, Prof Peter Hallward, Prof Chris Rust, Prof Benita Parry, Prof Andrew Spencer, Prof Philip Marfleet, Prof Frank Land, Dr Peter E Jones, Dr Nicholas Thoburn, Tom Webster, Dr Khursheed Wadia, Dr Philip Gilligan, Dr Lucy Michael, Prof Steve Hall, Prof Steve Keen, Dr David S Moon, Prof Ken Jones, Dr Karen F Evans, Dr Jim Crowther, Prof Alison Phipps, Dr Uri Horesh, Dr Clair Doloriert, Giles Bailey, Prof Murray Fraser, Prof Stephen Huggett, Dr Gabriela Saldanha, Prof Cahal McLaughlin, Ian Pace, Prof Philip Wadler, Dr Hanem El-Farahaty, Dr Anne Alexander, Dr Robert Boyce, Dr Patricia McManus, Prof Mathias Urban, Dr Naomi Woodspring, Prof David Wield, Prof Moin A Saleem, Dr Phil Edwards, Dr Jason Hart, Dr Sharon Kivland, Dr Rahul Rao, Prof Ailsa Land, Dr Lee Grieveson, Dr Paul Bagguley, Dr Rosalind Temple, Dr Karima Laachir, Dr Youcef Djerbib, Dr Sarah Perrigo, Bernard Sufrin, Prof James Dickins, John Burnett, Prof Des Freedman, Dr David Seddon, Prof Steve Tombs, Prof Louisa Sadler, Dr Leon Sealey-Huggins, Dr Rashné Limki, Dr Guy Standing, Dr Arianne Shahvisi, Prof Neil Smith, Myriam Salama-Carr, Dr Graham Smith, Dr Peter Fletcher

    #Palestine #Grande-Bretagne #Liberté_d'expression #Liberté_académique #Universités #Semaine_contre_l'apartheid_israélien #Israeli_Apartheid_Week #BDS #Boycott_universitaire