Killing thinking: how political correctness taught us what NOT to say

Thursday February 11, 2010

Dennis Hayes offers a guide to the arguments that academics, including students, use to kill open debate and critical thought

Open debate, discussion and hence critical thinking in the academy are now notoriously limited. There is a discussion deficit because academics now have an instrumental view of their role. They do the research for the Research Assessment Exercise and present it to small circles of their peers with little or no critical discussion. Attempting to reach a wider public audience for your ideas is considered ‘popularising’ or ‘polemical’. This is a wonderful defence for the obscure, uninteresting and dull.

This is an aspect of the stultifying effect of the bureaucratisation of universities and the critiques of the malign influence of managerialism on academic life are familiar. It is almost a banality to refer to them.

Less well documented is the increasing influence of the ‘student voice’ in killing critical thought with the cry that this or that argument, viewpoint or idea is ‘offensive’. Such infantile pleas for censorship are eagerly supported by the bureaucratised academy of which free thinking students’ unions used not to be a part.

Today the student-centred university and the censorious National Union of Students are aligned in opposition to critical thought. Not all universities and not all students’ unions are complicit in killing critical thought but the general trend towards desiring not just a physically safe but an intellectually ‘safe’ academy is there. Intellectual ‘safety’ is of course the opposite of what any institution worthy of the title ‘university’ should advocate.

More surprising are the ways in which academics themselves, within the context of courses of study in lectures and seminars, where even management allows them free intellectual play, put forward arguments and express attitudes that are killing thinking. Some of their remarks seem to be intellectual challenges and critiques but they actually send a message that says: the open expression of these thoughts is not allowed.

Academics are increasingly the agents of anti-critical conformity in their opposition to open public debate. For the benefit of those who may be impressed by the seeming intellectual ‘rigour’ and forcefulness of these disguised calls for academic conformity, and so that critical academics and students can identify and expose the censors for what they are, here are a few examples of the new censorship.

The demand for ‘evidence’

“I’d like to see the evidence.” New Labour created the demand for ‘evidence-based’ policy making simply because they couldn’t make a clear moral case for any policy they wished to pursue. They wanted the facts to dictate what needed to be done. By doing this they created a decade of policy making that committed the logical fallacy of deriving an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’

We might say that that is their problem but we are affected by their illogicality in many aspects of our lives. The consequence for the academy of New Labour’s ‘evidenced-based’ slogan is that whenever you put forward an argument someone will say “Where’s your evidence?” or “I’d like to see the evidence.”

The ‘academic’ force of this slogan is supposed to be that you base what you say on ‘research’ and don’t just give unsubstantiated opinions. That might occasionally be a good point to make in relation to the sloppy thinking of a ‘fresher’ student but it is now an automatic ‘clever’ riposte to any argument.

In its common use it now means you can’t speak unless you have undertaken a research project and can let the pure facts speak without your mind and values corrupting them. This is absurd. If you have an argument put it forward then find out whether it’s true through debate or research. “Where’s your evidence?” is a polite way of saying “I don’t want to hear this” or “I am not listening”.

A golden age

“You’re talking of a mythical golden age.” Even if you never use the phrase, someone will say of your critical comments about any contemporary issue or topic, “You are imagining a ‘Golden Age” or “You are assuming there was a Golden Age” and they conclude with dismissive remarks such as “Things weren’t better then, there was never such a time” or “It is a poor sort of reasoning to compare the present with a ‘straw’ past.”

The ‘academic’ force behind these arguments is that the speaker is making factual or historical errors or exaggerating to make a point. In truth, as the argument comes out unfailingly, and most often from people whose own knowledge of history is questionable or poor, this is just a device to say “No criticism of the present is allowed.” That’s why it is popular with politicians, policy makers and their epigones in the academy. “We won’t tolerate intellectual non-compliance with our modern ideas” is what they mean.

The last word

“I think the mistake everyone has been making throughout this discussion is…” Veterans of the smoke-filled political meeting room will remember the old left-wing trick of waiting until the very end of a meeting and making a speech or a revolutionary call to action on something that was not on the agenda.

One senior academic I know makes ‘The Last Word’ move at every seminar. Its ‘academic’ force is an explicit or implicit claim that ‘I am cleverer than you as I see your fundamental intellectual flaws.’

This can be very impressive and even disarming as the lecturers and students present may feel that they have lost their intellectual way. It is really a way of avoiding any debate and no more than a cheap intellectual trick. The speaker of the ‘Last Word’ cannot be challenged as the event is over and everyone is going home.

Corridor criticism

“I didn’t agree with a word of that talk!” Following on from the ‘last word’ is the dismissive private conversation. Its ‘academic’ force is illustrated by the French phrase, ‘esprit d’escalier,’ that neatly encapsulates that moment after a discussion when a brilliant argument comes into your head and you almost want to throw yourself down the stairs.

But corridor criticism is not this. It is a refusal to say anything because you do not want to test your criticisms in public. Often no more than a bit of back stabbing, even if the knife wielder has a point to make only a few friends know. When did chatting to your mates replace academic debate?

Tut! Tut! and getting all emotional

Tears, sighs, passionate outbursts of real or feigned hurt; the angry body language of someone whose identity has been offended; the severe or stern look of the manager or academic ‘leader’ who feels betrayed by critical academics.

The ‘academic’ force of all this discomfort is the recognition of our ‘emotional intelligence’, an oxymoron if there ever was one. Political correctness taught us what not to say. The new emotional correctness allows us to attempt to silence critical thought through emotional blackmail. It is as simple as that.

When did all these forms of impoliteness become acceptable in debate? How should we respond? Hug and comfort the offended?
As Alan Ryan once said of those who find criticism of their ideas and beliefs ‘offensive’ – if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen! The academy is a place where talk is met by more talk not tears.

Calls for ‘evidence’, allegations of ‘golden age’ fantasising, having the last word, tittle-tattle in the corridor and emotional blackmail are nothing new. Several colleagues have made this point to me and they are right. The difference now is that, in the absence of open public debate, what used to be nothing but irritating petty aspects of the academic job become the substitute for criticism. This is becoming all there is.

These attacks on critical thinking cannot be easily ‘answered.’ But if we are sensitive to them we can keep the focus on vigorous public debate rather than be complicit in the death of critical thinking.

Professor Dennis Hayes is the founder of Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF)

Academics for Academic Freedom