Bosses to academics: no discussion of academic issues
A professor was suspended after defending a gender-critical academic from accusations of “transphobia”.
Prof David Gordon said it was in the “interests” of staff and students at the University of Bristol to hear from Prof Alice Sullivan after he invited her to give a talk in November 2024. The Russell Group university’s LGBTQ+ Staff Network had claimed Prof Sullivan, of University College London, was guilty of “transphobia” and would cause “real and enduring harm” if allowed to speak.
But when Prof Gordon, Bristol’s professor of social justice, responded to their concerns via email, he was suspended because his manager had told him not to do so. An investigation concluded in March 2025 that he had failed to “follow reasonable management instructions” and nine months on he remains suspended.
Well that’s what universities are for, right? Sorting through which ideas we get to discuss and which we don’t?
Gordon is considering suing the university.
“I’d like them to apologise for violating my right to freedom of speech and academic freedom, and not protecting me from discrimination,” he told The Telegraph. “I think you should obey reasonable management instructions, such as marking. But being told to not discuss academic issues is just not reasonable.”
It’s like telling a grocery store not to talk about food.
Prof Gordon first invited Prof Sullivan to speak at Bristol in July 2024, which prompted the university’s LGBTQ+ Staff Network to object, saying: “We would like to raise an objection to this event, which is giving a platform at our university to a member of the academic community who has been noted for her transphobia views and statements. This kind of speaker and event causes real and enduring harm to our community.”
In the same way laws cause real and enduring harm to criminals, and fire departments cause real and enduring harm to arsonists.
The Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) is writing to the University of Bristol to seek clarification on Prof Gordon’s suspension and its implications for academic freedom.
“The length of Professor Gordon’s ongoing suspension is hard to square with a proportionate response,” said Freddie Attenborough, its research manager. “And when it arises in the context of his attempt to address complaints from the university’s LGBTQ+ staff network about supposedly ‘harmful’ gender-critical views being heard on campus, the message to other academics is obvious: steer clear of controversy – and leave the hard questions to those least interested in evidence.”
Well, you have to admit, it simplifies things.
Prof Sullivan said: “Activists make accusations of ‘transphobia’ against anyone who acknowledges the material reality of sex. Universities should treat this tactic with the derision it deserves. The idea that a highly respected senior professor cannot reach out to colleagues to discuss a contentious issue without management reprimand speaks volumes.”
And not the good kind of volumes.
And while we are on it, pass round the bottle of hemlock, so we can all have a swig.
Didn’t the University of Sussex get fined a half million pounds for failing to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom about a year ago? Management isn’t too swift on the uptake.
This issue doesn’t just touch on gender issues. Ever since schools in the US became bottom-line oriented, rather than learning oriented, it has been a problem. Don’t hurt student feelings; they might not enroll next semester. They might take their money to a more student-friendly school.
I was once refused the right to bring speakers on critical thinking into my class; I could not make it a required event, because, well, critical thinking, right? I was allowed to bring them to the school, and “invite” my students to attend, and given them extra credit, but I could not make it mandatory. None of the other teachers who had planned to make the event mandatory were allowed to, either.
Academic freedom? That’s for the naive…the real driver of learning these days is economics and student feelings.
Having faced the same problem, I hope that David Gordon wins his case if he goes ahead with suing the university. As I may have mentioned before, I have a lot more sympathy for Peter Duesberg’s views on AIDS and HIV than almost all of my colleagues. I invited both him and his associate David Rasnick to participate in a NATO-sponsored meeting in Hungary in 1999 (I may add that the authorities at NATO made no objection, before or afterwards). Both of them came and nobody complained that they had been harmed by having to listen to people who promoted wicked views. Their formal presentations were about aneuploidy and cancer, and didn’t concern AIDS or HIV. However, I invited Peter to give an informal talk about these heretical topics one evening. This was well attended and again, nobody complained that they had been harmed by having to listen to someone’s wicked views.
Later on both came (on separate occasions) to give seminars in Marseilles at my invitation, and there were no problems with their formal presentations (again about aneuploidy for Peter, and biochemical evolution for David). However, I also asked David to give an informal talk about AIDS, and I unwisely publicized this early enough for the opponents to have time to marshal their forces. Two technicians (not academic researchers) came to tell me that in their opinion the talk should not be allowed. I didn’t give in to their demand, but they then took it to higher authority, and a day or two later the Director of the Institute came to tell me that the lecture room could not be used. She came with the Secretary of the Institute, someone with no academic qualifications that I know of, but a big man, and I was probably supposed to feel intimidated. There wasn’t much I could do about that, other than move the talk to a much smaller and more obscure room.
Now, I imagine that all of us in this group believe that people who think that men are not women should be allowed to say that to a relevant audience at the University of Bristol. But what about speakers who deviate from the overwhelming view of right-thinking people about AIDS, or about creation, or about vaccination and autism, or about the shape of the earth: should they be allowed to present their views to a suitable audience?
Well, there is the view of right-thinking people, and then there’s the view of people who know something about the subject under discussion. I don’t for instance think institutions have to provide a platform for people with zero knowledge of subject x to give lectures on subject x.