The boundaries of academic freedom have been debated constantly in these pages over recent weeks. In this edition alone, Steven Plaut and Neve Gordon espouse contrasting principles in relation to academic engagement in Israel, while Richard Yuill's research on sexual relationships with children continues to arouse strong feelings both for and against. In the midst of such controversy, and bearing in mind the increasingly litigious climate in which universities operate, perhaps it is understandable that Durham University should want to forearm its staff before they focus on contentious subjects. But the idea of academics having to seek ethical approval from a teaching and learning committee before broaching topics such as slavery and witchcraft sounds more like a Laurie Taylor column than serious news.
Of course academics must be aware of the sensitivities of their audience, but universities have to be places of open debate. Students should be exposed to views with which they may not be comfortable, if only so that they learn to challenge them. No departmental committee can exercise those judgements without turning higher education into an anodyne process of diminished value.
Register to continue
Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.
Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:
- Sign up for the editor's highlights
- Receive World University Rankings news first
- Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
- Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber? Sign in now