Turkish students protest their freedom of speech in Ankara (placards read “Universities belong to the students and they will be free with us”). Photo: Adem Altan/AFP/Getty Images
Show Hide image

From Ukraine to the UK, academic freedom is under threat

The freedom to think, discuss and disagree is being eroded in institutions around the world.

When Resat Baris Ünlü sat down to write an exam question for his students, he didn’t suspect that the consequences would include death threats on his life.

Ünlü, a modern historian who teaches at Ankara University, asked his students a question on the 1978 Kurdistan manifesto written by Abdullah Öcalan.

But when a Turkish newspaper found out about the content of the exam question it was suggested that academics were supporting “terrorist activities” and hiding behind “the cloak of freedom of expression”.

Since the newspaper article, Ünlü has received multiple threats on his life.

This is just one incident from many around the world that we have charted in a special report about to be published in Index on Censorship magazine, that show the variety of threats to the principle that academic life is about presenting, debating and reviewing different attitudes and evidence from a multitude of sources without fear of harm.

Another case that sends out chills was the report from academic Tatyana Malyarenko in Ukraine about how the fighting in her country has led to massive divisions between those working at universities. Special committees have been set up at universities in Ukraine to uncover “separatist” attitudes among those teaching on campuses. Reports, like those made to witch trials centuries ago, are being filed by students and other faculty to these attestation committees. Those named are being calling before committees for investigation, where lecturers can end up being denounced and losing their posts. When words like “patriotism” are flung around as weapons, then leaders of nations are drawing on the bluntest, and most pathetic, of instruments to keep their citizens in check.

Faint echoes of McCarthyism cannot be ignored when you hear of the details of these accusations and those called before such committees. Those infamous trials in the US during the 1950s have dark memories for a nation where first amendment rights are often touted as fundamental to their values, and where people self-censored their views.

But today the US is certainly not immune to placing limits on what academics and students can argue. Shockingly, certain US campuses have created small free speech zones, painted areas, often in remote parts of the universities, where people are allowed to speak about “controversial” subjects. Just there. Nowhere else.  What does that say about attitudes to learning and questioning? Most people outside the US are absolutely astounded to find out about these free speech zones. “Really? They can’t possibly exist, can they?” Yes, they can, and do. These zones are small, but significant, symbols of the limitations that are appearing in each part of the globe, ranging from the ridiculous to the downright frightening.

Painting a white line around a square and saying “here is where you can do your free thinking” does nothing but undermine the idea of academic excellence being about an inquiring mind and an ability to challenge preconceptions.

Meanwhile in the UK, academic freedom is also being challenged. Over the past couple of years, Index and others have also challenged “safe space” policies adopted by many UK universities. These policies have been used to ban speakers or debates that groups of students disapprove of.

Students are freed from the cotton wool when they head off to university; they are out of the clutches of mum and dad, and get to make their own choices. Quite rightly. But they are also, many for the first time, hearing people speaking about policies, politics and ideas they might have never heard before, and with which they might vehemently disagree with. But there’s nothing wrong with that. If you are sure that your position is right, then you lose nothing by hearing the counter arguments. It might help you work out how to win over the opposing side, or, it just might, convince you to change your point. Sure, there should be a chance to argue back. Yes, panels should carry a range of positions.  But when powers that be, and even students themselves, want to wrap up their world so they can’t hear opinions they don’t like or agree with, then they are doing themselves no favours.

Trigger warnings, where students are told that passages in textbooks might cause offence and no-platforming policies are being used to close off avenues of discovery and inquiry. Putting together this report has shown that the threats to academic thought are different in different regions. But all around the world, the freedom to think, study, teach and discuss is coming under threat from a variety of forces.

That’s why it was no surprise that around 70 academics and authors have signed an open letter of concern that is printed in the upcoming magazine.

The freedom to think, discuss and disagree should be central to every institution of education, and, sadly, that idea seems under debate.

Rachael Jolley is editor of the quarterly Index on Censorship magazine, which will publish its summer edition in mid-June. Index on Censorship's debate on academic freedom is on 1 July. It is called "Silenced on Campus". Details here.

Getty
Show Hide image

A new German law wants to force mothers to reveal their child’s biological father

The so-called “milkmen’s kids law” would seek protection for men who feel they have been duped into raising children they believe are not biologically theirs – at the expense of women’s rights.

The German press call them “Kuckuckskinder”, which translates literally as “cuckoo children” – parasite offspring being raised by an unsuspecting innocent, alien creatures growing fat at the expense of the host species’ own kind. The British press have opted for the more Benny Hill-esque “milkmen’s kids”, prompting images of bored Seventies housewives answering the door in negligées before inviting Robin Asquith lookalikes up to their suburban boudoirs. Nine months later their henpecked husbands are presented with bawling brats and the poor sods remain none the wiser.

Neither image is particularly flattering to the children involved, but then who cares about them? This is a story about men, women and the redressing of a legal – or is it biological? – injustice. The children are incidental.

This week German Justice Minister Heiko Maas introduced a proposal aimed at to providing greater legal protection for “Scheinväter” – men who are duped into raising children whom they falsely believe to be biologically theirs. This is in response to a 2015 case in which Germany’s highest court ruled that a woman who had told her ex-husband that her child may have been conceived with another man could not be compelled to name the latter. This would, the court decided, be an infringement of the woman’s right to privacy. Nonetheless, the decision was seen to highlight the need for further legislation to clarify and strengthen the position of the Scheinvater.

Maas’ proposal, announced on Monday, examines the problem carefully and sensitively before merrily throwing a woman’s right to privacy out of the window. It would compel a woman to name every man she had sexual intercourse with during the time when her child may have been conceived. She would only have the right to remain silent in cases should there be serious reasons for her not to name the biological father (it would be for the court to decide whether a woman’s reasons were serious enough). It is not yet clear what form of punishment a woman would face were she not to name names (I’m thinking a scarlet letter would be in keeping with the classy, retro “man who was present at the moment of conception” wording). In cases where it did transpire that another man was a child’s biological father, he would be obliged to pay compensation to the man “duped” into supporting the child for up to two years.

It is not clear what happens thereafter. Perhaps the two men shake hands, pat each other on the back, maybe even share a beer or two. It is, after all, a kind of gentlemen’s agreement, a transaction which takes place over the heads of both mother and child once the latter’s paternity has been established. The “true” father compensates the “false” one for having maintained his property in his absence. In some cases there may be bitterness and resentment but perhaps in others one will witness a kind of honourable partnership. You can’t trust women, but DNA tests, money and your fellow man won’t let you down.

Even if it achieves nothing else, this proposal brings us right back to the heart of what patriarchy is all about: paternity and ownership. In April this year a German court ruled that men cannot be forced to take paternity tests by children who suspect them of being their fathers. It has to be their decision. Women, meanwhile, can only access abortion on demand in the first trimester of pregnancy, and even then counselling is mandatory (thereafter the approval of two doctors is required, similar to in the UK). One class of people can be forced to gestate and give birth; another can’t even be forced to take a DNA test. One class of people can be compelled to name any man whose sperm may have ventured beyond their cervix; another is allowed to have a body whose business is entirely its own. And yes, one can argue that forcing men to pay money for the raising of children evens up the score. Men have always argued that, but they’re wrong.

Individual men (sometimes) pay for the raising of individual children because the system we call patriarchy has chosen to make fatherhood about individual ownership. Women have little choice but to go along with this as long as men exploit our labour, restrict our access to material resources and threaten us with violence. We live in a world in which it is almost universally assumed that women “owe” individual men the reassurance that it was their precious sperm that impregnated us, lest we put ourselves and our offspring at risk of poverty and isolation. Rarely do any of us dare to protest. We pretend it is a fair deal, even that reproductive differences barely affect our lives at all. But the sex binary – the fact that sperm is not egg and egg is not sperm – affects all of us.

The original 2015 ruling got it right. The male demand for reassurance regarding paternity is an infringement of a woman’s right to privacy. Moreover, it is important to see this in the context of all the other ways in which men have sought to limit women’s sexual activity, freedom of movement and financial independence in order to ensure that children are truly “theirs”.  Anxiety over paternity is fundamentally linked to anxiety over female sexuality and women’s access to public space. Yet unless all women are kept under lock and key at all times, men will never, ever have the reassurance they crave. Even then, the abstract knowledge that you are the only person to have had the opportunity to impregnate a particular woman cannot rival the physical knowledge of gestation.

We have had millennia of pandering to men’s existential anxieties and treating all matters related to human reproduction, from sex to childbirth, as exceptional cases meaning women cannot have full human rights. Isn’t it about time we tried something new? How about understanding fatherhood not as winning gold in an Olympic sperm race, but as a contract endlessly renewed?

What each of us receives when a child is born is not a biological entity to do with as we choose. It is a relationship, with all of its complexities and risks. It is something worth contributing to and fighting for. Truly, if a man cannot understand that, then any money wasted on a Kuckuckskind – a living, breathing child he could get to know – has got to be the least of his worries. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.