Angelos Sofocleous, M.A. is a Philosophy Ph.D. student at University of York who works as an Interviews Editor at The Definite Article, Deputy Science Editor at Nouse Philosophy, and the Editor-in-Chief at Secular Nation Magazine. Here we talk more in-depth about updates since December, 2018 on the fallout of the reactions to a tweet and an article.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’ve written a decent amount together. In fact, we have seen a development of secularism in Greece and in its education, and some of the aspects of personal and professional history for you (bumpy). Mario Zucconi quoted you and I in EU Influence Beyond Conditionality: Turkey Plus/Minus the EU. One of the most recent, relevant developments came in the form of firing or considered resignation from several positions as editor or leader followed by some opprobrium in public. You were President-Elect for Humanist Students, which has a triplet setup for incumbent and leaving presidents. Recently, you were a hated person. Some stood by you. Some still hate you. What was the feeling in the interlude since the last interview in 2018?
Angelos
Sofocleous: Let me first start with a recollection of
what had happened, for reminding those who were following the case when it
happened, and informing those who will hear about the incidents for the first
time.
On August 21st 2018, I retweeted a tweet reading
“RT if women don’t have penises”. The original tweet was accompanied by an
article from The Spectator titled “Is it a crime to say ‘women don’t have
penises’?” The retweet was part of other statements and articles that I had
written about sex, gender, and the transgender movement which included certain
criticisms of the movement as well as suggestions on how it can be improved so
that society can achieve overcoming sex and gender stereotypes. Through my
statements, I also wished to express and support the view that humans are a
dimorphic species; that is, a human being can be a male or female, allowing for
certain cases of intersex individuals who, however, seem to be unrepresented,
underrepresented or even misrepresented by the transgender movement.
Despite me deleting the retweet a day after, I
was forced to resign from the position of President-Elect of Humanists UK, and
a few days later I was fired by Ry Lo and Sebastián Sánchez-Schilling from the
position of Assistant Editor of Critique, Durham University Philosophy
Society’s journal, and by Anastasia Maseychik from the position of Editor of
The Bubble, a Durham University magazine. These dismissals were found to be
‘unfair and undemocratic’ by Durham Students’ Union as they did not follow the procedures
outlined by Durham Students’ Union, did not give me an opportunity to explain
my views, did not gather a vote of no confidence from their members, and did
not give me an opportunity to appeal the decision. Durham Students’ Union
called for the journal and the magazine to apologize. The SU too, as did the
magazine, but I have not yet received an apology from the journal.
As I noted in my resignation statement from
Humanists UK “[my] views were taken to be ‘transphobic’ by individuals who
cannot tolerate any criticism, either of their movement or their ideas, and are
unable to engage in a civilized conversation on issues they disagree on. These
are individuals who think they hold the absolute right to determine which ideas
can be discussed and what language can be used in a public forum.”
“Living in a free society and being present
and active in a public forum means that one often witnesses comments that she
may judge as offensive, divisive, or derogatory. Living in a democracy means
that one will often offend and get offended. That’s the price one pays for
being a member of a democracy and not existing into her own bubble.”
The incident with the Durham University
Philosophy Society journal was cited in the Supreme Court of the United States
case R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral
Homes, INC., V. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Aimee Stephens.
The Supreme Court explicitly says:
“In the U.K., Angelos Sofocleous was dismissed
from Durham University’s philosophy journal Critique because he used his social
media account to share another individual’s comment noting that “women don’t
have penises.”
[…] As this Court rightly stated in Barnett, “[i]f there is any fixed star in our
constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can
prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other
matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith
therein.” This Court should adhere to that same principle today, and refuse
to compel the R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, or anyone else, to believe
that men can be women.”
My deleted retweet was not taken favourably by
Durham University’s Philosophy Department either. Following the incidents, I
was bullied and harassed by Dr Clare Mac Cumhaill, an academic at the
Department. Dr Mac Cumhaill had called me in her office and told me I had no
freedom of speech for my views, was illegally in possession of my Bachelor’s
grades which she used to belittle me, threatened me with expulsion from the
University, falsely accused me of misgendering someone on Twitter, and other
equally appalling and unfounded accusations. Prof Sophie Gibb, then Head of
Department, was dismissive of my allegations and did not act according to the
rules and regulations, and Prof Stephen Mumford, current Head of Department,
recently issued a non-apology saying “I am sorry that you feel we fell short in
your case.” after a complaint of mine against Dr Mac cumhaill and the
Department was upheld following an investigation by the University’s Student
Conduct office.
Such an apology is by no means an apology for
various reasons:
a) An apology is not honest or heartfelt if
it’s communicated via a third party. The mere fact that this was sent to the
Student Conduct Office which then sent it to me leaves me doubting whether the
Philosophy Department understood what they did wrong and why they needed to
apologize. It feels as if Stephen Mumford, the Head of Department (HoD) was
forced to issue the apology.
b) There was no reason for Stephen Mumford to
mention that “While your complaint was not upheld”, other than out of
spite and wanting to stress that the Department did nothing wrong, regardless
of the fact that they did not follow procedure and acted against both
University and Department rules and regulations, and included a number of lies
and inaccuracies in their statement to the complaint and review investigators
which I am exposing as I further appeal my case.
This is particularly weird to me as in my
culture such a thing would never happen. An apology will never be communicated
via a third party but directly to the person to whom you are apologizing or
publicly so that the parties involved have assured each other that the issue is
settled and that the apology has been received as intended.
c) “I am sorry that you feel that we fell
short in your case”. This is a clear usage of a gaslighting technique and
victim blaming. Stephen Mumford shifts the blame from the Department to me,
essentially saying that the problem is not that they fell short in my case but
my feeling that they fell short in my case. “I am sorry that we fell short
in your case” is the appropriate response. To put it bluntly to make this
point clear – “I am sorry I raped you” and “I am sorry about how
you felt after I raped you” communicate two entirely different things, the
latter alleviating any blame from the perpetrator.
d) The letter puts a lot of emphasis on the
need of the Department to process things quicker. That was the least of my
concerns regarding the harassment and bullying I received and I am surprised
the Department is putting so much focus on that. The point of my initial
complaint and the review request was about harassment and bullying. Regardless
of the fact that this took a lot of time and that the Department allegedly
decided to issue an apology to me 12 months ago (which was never communicated
and I question whether such a decision was even taken), there are far more
important issues with my complaint, some of which are of legal nature.
e) The complaint was not from, or on behalf
of, the academic against whom I initiated the complaint. My complaint was primarily
against the academic and only secondarily against the Department.
Due to the inadequacy of Durham University and
Durham University Philosophy Department to deal with this case adequately and
with respect, as well as the horrible and evil behaviour I experienced from
Claire Mac Cumhaill, I am now appealing the outcome of my complaint to the
Office of the Independent Adjudicator and also seeking legal advice due to the
severity of the harassment incident and what this has caused me.
You said in your question that I was “a hated
person”. This was indeed true – I faced a lot of hatred on Twitter and other
social media, as well as in Durham University. This is also a symptom of
depression – feeling that everyone hates you, that everyone wants to hurt you.
In my case though it was not just an unjustified feeling of mine, but something
true as I was experiencing, on a daily basis, people telling me how much they
hated me or expressing hatred in their own vile ways. What for? For a deleted
retweet.
There is this quote: ‘If you have haters, you
must be doing something right’. This is by no means a rule as it can be easily
misapplied and we can think of cases where this is not true. However, for a lot
of time before the ‘women don’t have penises’ incident, although I was involved
in activist circles and was publicly expressing my views on a variety of
topics, I did not have any haters, I had never received a death threat, no one
was disagreeing with me, and no one was exposing me publicly. Because of this,
I felt I was doing something wrong. The fact that these things weren’t
happening did not show that I was right in what I was saying, rather that I had
not done enough to get outside my bubble and my comfort circle. You aren’t much
of an activist or an opinion writer if you are only active within your own
circles – you have to get out.
Once people started hating me, I realized I
was doing something right – not that my ideas were right but that I was getting
outside my bubble. A good analogy would be that I was previously within fans of
my own football team and I felt comfortable and safe being in between them, but
now I had gotten into the playing field, ready to get into an ideological
battle with individuals who disagreed with me.
However, we don’t necessarily need to think of
debate as two sides which are polar opposites of each other. Philosophy is the
quest to truth and in a philosophical debate all sides should strive to build
onto each other’s argument to reach a truth or a consensus.
Being hated is the price one pays for striving
to be a public figure or expressing their opinions publicly. If you imagine you
are speaking at an audience of a thousand individuals for years on a variety of
topics, it is extremely unlikely if not impossible that there will not be
something which offends someone or is hurtful to someone. Your job as a public
figure is not to make everyone feel comfortable – we are not in kindergarten.
Rather, your aim is to spark conversation and debate and give food for thought
to individuals as well as the opportunity to challenge you.
Do your own thing. Haters will hate you
anyway.
Jacobsen: Looking back, what were the
long-term effects of these to your mental and emotional well-being?
Sofocleous:
I fell into major depression. The backlash of that single
retweet was immense. I would never have thought that I would make national news
because I said “women don’t have penises”. It was so comical but at the same
time it was something that had a huge negative effect on me. I felt that my
whole life and my future in journalism and academia was collapsing.
What pushed me into depression was certainly
the actions of Andrew Copson and Hannah Timson from Humanists UK, Ry Lo and
Sebastián Sánchez-Schilling from Critique, and Anastasia Maseychik from The
Bubble. And of course the compliance of Prof Sophie Gibb and Prof Stephen
Mumford to me experiencing severe distress, bullying and harassment within
their own Department. However, it was Claire Mac Cumhaill’s bullying and
harassment that pushed me into depression.
No person who has not experienced depression
can understand what depression is like. When you experience depression, you
feel surrounded by a black fog, losing all connection to yourself, other
people, and the world. The world of depression is gray, colourless, with no
meaning or hope. You feel immense guilt all the time, as well as that everyone
hates you.
Everything takes an incredible amount of
effort to be done. Getting out of bed, making a cup of tea, getting in the
shower; it’s all a struggle. You feel unable to concentrate on or pay attention
to anything and focusing on getting things done seems impossible.
The weeks after I was bullied and harassed by
Claire Mac Cumhaill in her office, the gas system at my house stopped working.
I couldn’t even make the effort of informing the landlord or telephoning the
gas company. I ended up washing dishes in the shower, which had an electric
boiler, and slept feeling the cold of Durham, even though fixing the gas system
was just a phone call away. The bathroom light was faulty too and wouldn’t turn
on. It was a special light, not one which I could find at a supermarket. I
showered with my phone light for weeks until I managed to make the effort to
inform my landlord that the bathroom light needed to be replaced.
Everytime I went out; to the grocery store, to
an event, to the library, to a lecture – I felt this fog around me and was
unable to pay attention to anyone or anything people were telling me. I felt
that people hated me and that everyone knew about the incidents and turned
themselves against me. This is the world of depression, a place which I
wouldn’t wish my worst enemy to experience.
The incident with Clare Mac Cumhaill took
place in October 2018. I only lasted for two more months in Durham and left in
early December 2018 due to the fact that I couldn’t continue belonging in a
Department in which I felt I was hated and marginalized. I continued my studies
as normal as I could do work from home. I only returned to Durham in February
2018, to complete a module I had during that term, and in August 2018, to
complete my dissertation.
In September 2019 I contacted Clare,
expressing to her how horrible I felt after the meeting we had and how her
actions have pushed me into depression. Not only she denied any of my
allegations, but she did not even have the slightest courage or decency to
apologize for what had happened.
Now, this is very strange to me due to the
fact that, in my culture, if someone tells you that you have done something
that made them feel horribly bad, you apologize even if you don’t feel you have
done anything wrong. This is the kindness and respect for fellow human beings
that I’m talking about. If you tell me that I did something that hurt you, I
will apologize, even if I think that I did nothing wrong or acted with good
intentions (as Clare claimed). An individual who does not respond to another’s
bad emotional situation which she caused is nothing else than wicked.
Nevertheless, I also learned a lot of lessons:
People can be vile and evil – some people want to see you suffer and get joy
from seeing you suffer. Some people like to experience schadenfreude in its
most absolute form. There were people that were emailing my University to expel
me. How can any human being wish that for another individual? One would have
thought that with the development of modern civilization and democracy we would
get rid of the animal inside us, but that will never happen.
We will always organize ourselves in tribes
and form mobs to attack members of the other tribe. The only thing that has
changed is that instead of these happening in the fields with real weapons, it
takes place over the Internet with keyboards.
Twitter will be an excellent tool for future
historians in understanding the toxicity of human nature.
Also, it was a good coincidence that while I
was experiencing depression, I was attending the “Phenomenology and the
Cognitive Sciences” class. Phenomenology is the branch of philosophy that
studies subjective experiences of emotions of people. The seminar leader, Dr
Benedict Smith, was excellent and the topic particularly interesting and
exciting. Some of the classes were about the phenomenology of mental illnesses,
one of them on the phenomenology of depression. I researched more and more into
the phenomenology of depression as this helped me better understand my
condition and also found comfort realizing that other individuals had the
potential of understanding what I was feeling. One of the things you will find
if you look at narratives of people who have experienced depression is the
disappointment and loss of hope due to the feeling that no one is able to
understand what depression is like. Indeed, it is not something one can fully
describe – that’s why we are using these metaphors which are close to what we
are feeling (emptiness, black fog, colourless, gray, numb) but can never
accurately depict it.
Due to the fact that I became interested in
the phenomenology of depression, I chose to complete my dissertation on that
particular area and now I’m pursuing a PhD which focuses on the phenomenology
of depression. I would like to take the opportunity to thank those who pushed
me into depression because without them I wouldn’t be pursuing a PhD in this
extremely interesting area of philosophy.
Jacobsen: Some happenings in the interim, too, included the restriction, in some manner, on freedom of expression, as reported by Dan Fisher in “Terror Tactics Triumph, Silence Freedom of Speech at Bristol University.” What happened?
Sofocleous:
Correct. Because of the incidents following my
retweet, the Bristol Free Speech Society had invited me to be a speaker at their
panel discussion event in February 2019, in which three panelists would discuss
freedom of speech, each having a different approach.
While the event was scheduled to take place,
less than a week before the event, Bristol Students’ Union contacted the Bristol
Free Speech Society informing them that I was disinvited as a speaker saying
that I was no longer allowed to be present on the panel amidst ‘security
concerns’. Bristol SU never said what those security concerns were nor how they
were justified. My appearance on the panel was announced weeks before the event
but no student society, organization, or individual student had protested
against my participation or had called for me to be disinvited.
The Bristol SU was merely succumbing to the
global paranoia that currently takes place in universities in which people get
de-platformed and disinvited from giving speeches or participating in
conferences just because they might offend someone.
It is funny to me how the act of speaking or
voicing your opinion can be a ‘security concern’. The neo-liberal will
immediately reply to this: Yes, but what about Hitler? He was voicing hateful,
and obviously wrong, opinions.
The neo-liberal is correct. Hitler was, in
fact, voicing deeply hateful and divisive opinions which were wrong beyond
doubt. However, if we think that we would get rid of Nazism simply by banning
the Nazi party or by fining or putting Hitler and his peers in prison for hate
speech we would be very wrong.
We would be very wrong because we would ignore
the system through which Nazism arose and developed. No hateful idea appears
out of nowhere. We should treat a dangerous and hateful idea like a virus. Now,
with the emergence of a global pandemic, the virus analogy is as timely as
ever.
Dangerous ideas are viruses. But they cannot
be treated in the same way as we treat biological viruses.
One would think that we need to restrict the
idea to a certain area in society in a way that it cannot spread through
society, as we would do with a biological virus. The thing with viruses is that
they are not able to organise themselves in a way which is similar to how human
societies organise. A virus can simply be marginalised to a certain part of the
body where it affects healthy cells at a minimum level, and subsequently be
exterminated. The viruses themselves are not going to organise and fight back
to the healthy part of the body.
Think about how the majority of countries deal
with the coronavirus. They impose a lockdown, and citizens in those countries
face legal consequences if they do not isolate themselves at home. In order for
a biological virus to be fought, people need to be isolated so that the virus
does not spread and those who have the virus are strictly isolated so that they
do not spread it onto others. Take the island of Spinalonga in Greece, for
example. Spinalonga served as a leper colony. People with leprosy were sent
there to be treated and to not infect the healthy population of Greece. The
illness is restricted within a geographical area and is controlled.
However, we cannot do the same with a social
virus. If you decide to marginalize or isolate individuals who follow a hateful
ideology, those individuals still have the opportunity to fight back against
ideologically healthy individuals. The fact that YouTube or Facebook bans
individuals with unscientific or hateful ideas may restrict their ideas from
spreading, but it does nothing to prevent those ideologies from emerging
through other parts of society or in real life. White supremacists and fascists
will still find ways to organize themselves and infiltrate society.
What is important to note here is that by
attempting to punish individuals or making an ideology illegal, we are not
reaching the root of the problem. It is as if we discover that a particular
disease stems from unhealthy practices (eating certain kinds of animals, in the
COVID-19 case) and yet we continue those practices. We need not simply try to
eliminate coronavirus cases or find a vaccine, but to examine why and how the
virus emerged in the first place, and once we identify the reason(s), we fight
so that we create a society which does not have those kinds of threats.
In a similar manner, a hateful and divisive
ideology is part of the system in which it exists. It comes from how children
are educated, from biased history books, from false family narratives, from the
agenda of political parties. If we want to kill a beast we must find it in its
lair and not in the wild.
With a social virus, the antibodies can be
developed beforehand through education. Education is for social viruses what a
vaccine is for biological viruses. If enough individuals are taught logic,
rational thinking, how to respect other people, how to argue with others, how
to be kind toward each other, how to value human life and show admiration
toward anything alive, including nature, then society will develop ‘herd
immunity’ toward any hateful or divisive ideas.
So, with the above thoughts in mind, I decided
to attend the scheduled event of Bristol Free Speech Society as an audience
member. The event organizers were planning on holding the event without me as a
panel member. However, as soon as some members of the audience realized that I
was present, they called for me to appear on the panel.
The President of the Bristol Free Speech
Society, listening to people’s demands, asked whether there is anyone from the
audience who objected to me being on the panel.
No even one person from an audience of 200
people had any objection in me being present on the panel. All committee
members of the Society favoured me being on the panel, as well as the other
panel members. As responsible adults who can take matters into their own hands,
people showed their power and decided that there was no risk associated with me
being on the panel.
Bristol SU had acted in a patronizing manner,
treating its own students like children who have the need to be disciplined and
do not know to judge for themselves whether they want to listen to certain
views or not.
The event went on as normal and everyone
treated each other with respect and kindness, as human beings do when they grow
up in a civil environment in which they learn to challenge and not cancel each
other’s ideas. Universities and Student Unions so often succumb to the tiny
minority of students who think they have the right to dictate what is discussed
in a public forum and have the privilege to feel offended by little and
unimportant things.
Being de-platformed from an event on free
speech is the absolute example of the current state of universities in the UK.
You can’t get more ironic than that.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, why were you considered a security risk within the confines of the event? This may relate to legitimate reasons of uncivil, violent protests from the left or the right, or from illegitimate reasons for the perception of words as violence when done in a controlled panel setting in which the topic, the speakers, and the time and place are known well ahead of time, i.e., if you don’t like it, then don’t go to it.
Sofocleous:
It is everyone’s right to protest against the
appearance of any individual who has been invited to speak at any institution,
private or public. What individuals cannot do is restrict that individual from
speaking or trying to ‘de-platorm’ them.
This is the beauty of being a citizen of a
democratic country. You have the right to listen to all kinds of opinions and
views, challenge them, ridicule them, follow them, unfollow them, without any
one forcing you to believe one thing or another. When a dangerous idea appears,
you challenge it and attack it publicly with reason and evidence and attack it
to its core.
The fact that people from all over the
political spectrum might respond to certain people speaking with violence is a
huge problem. We have witnessed people entering lecture rooms or conference
venues and disrupting an otherwise peaceful talk. If they disagree with what
the speaker is saying, they can sit in a civil manner amongst the audience,
take notes, form their questions, and then challenge the speaker during the
Q&A and demonstrate in front of everyone why the speaker is so obviously
wrong.
We must not succumb to people who use violence
as their form of protest in these circumstances. Any historical period in which
ideas were silenced or censored is a dark period. We should not let that happen
again.
There were no legitimate reasons for uncivil
or violent protests to take place due to me participating in the panel.
I am not a criminal, I have done nothing to
justify such an abhorrent behaviour by the Bristol SU, and their stance only
adds to confirming the already troubled state of free speech in UK
universities.
And if there were legitimate reasons for
uncivil or violent protests, this is not something that should concern the
panel members, but this is the Bristol SU’s problem. If someone is offended
because I speak my views on freedom of speech, then they might consider
isolating themselves at home and not accessing social media because they are
the kind of people that will get offended by anything. And not only they will
get offended by anything but they will tell you to stop talking because they
are offended.
If Bristol SU was worried that there would be
protests at the event, then they should have given themselves enough time to
assure police presence at the event. They had not cited security concerns until
the last minute which puts their motives and aims into question.
There were never any legitimate reasons for
there being any protests at the event and Bristol SU’s reaction was wholly
unjustifiable.
Jacobsen: David Verry in “Banned speaker joins panel to speak at Bristol free speech event” stated, “Sofocleous complaining that the ‘authoritarian’ SU had ‘de-platformed’…SU had asked for a delay.” Reading this reportage by Verry, the language of “delay” seems too downplayed and “authoritarian” seems overplayed. With some time to reflect on the event, what seems like the correct orientation for the interpretation of the events’ proceedings?
Sofocleous: There was no reason for the SU to ask for the event to be delayed. The fact that they waited until the last minute to ask for the delay shows that they were ill-intentioned and not interested in providing a space in which ideas and views could be presented and challenged, but rather they wanted to present the event as a threat to everyone involved and to the University.
Bristol SU did, in fact, act in an
authoritarian and patronizing manner. Students at the University of Bristol,
one of the best universities in the country, are bright enough to decide for
themselves whether they want to attend an event or not and whether they want to
follow an idea they listen to or not.
As I told you earlier, there were no protests
at the event, or any disruption caused by any student. This is what happens
when responsible, civil, and kind adults decide to discuss an issue. They will
respect the other’s opinion and will challenge it publicly. They won’t be
scared of the idea or try to marginalize it. As I supported, marginalizing
ideas or isolating individuals who hold them is not conducive to battling those
ideas and making them disappear from society.
Let’s finally get this straight: You will never get everyone to agree with you. So the best thing you can do is learn to argue and debate. Violence is not the answer.
We talked before about the individuals who will read the tweet – “Women’ don’t have penises” – while others will skim the article, and fewer will read the entire set of the arguments into the view for you, including on Keingenderism. Lucy Connolly in UNILAD, in an article entitled “Student Who Said ‘Women Don’t Have Penises’ Was Barred From Free Speech Debate,” recounted the statement by the Bristol Free Speech Society:
We are saddened to inform you that due to Student Union bureaucracy we have been forced to cancel the invitation we extended to Angelos Sofocleous to be on our panel discussion on free speech. We have given the SU plenty of notice for this event. But they felt it proper to cancel his attendance in the last minute, citing “security concerns”. For context, Angelos is a full time student at Durham University who lives amongst students on campus. We leave it to the public to reach their own conclusions with regards to the SU’s intentions.
Taking a generous view, what were the positive intentions of the SU and the Bristol Free Speech Society? I state a “generous view” because I would assume individuals within the BFSS or the SU wuld argue for good intentions or working for the greater good insofar as they deem it, see it.
Sofocleous:
The Bristol Free Speech Society, being a student
society which is affiliated to the Bristol Students’ Union, is bound to follow
certain rules and regulations of the SU. Societies in most UK universities must
submit a speakers’ list to their SU for approval when they are hosting a guest
speaker. This is also what the Bristol Free Speech Society had done on this
occasion. Because of my retweet, Bristol SU decided that I was a security
threat and called for my de-platforming and for the event to be postponed.
Bristol Free Speech Society acted in
accordance with the SU’s rules and regulations. Me being amongst the audience
members was not something that went against the rules and regulations, nor my
eventual participation on the panel. SUs cannot decide for their students. If
more than 200 students decided that they wanted to see me on the panel, then
Bristol SU saying no to that would be nothing else than patronizing and
disrespectful to its own students.
Bristol SU wanted to obviously avoid any
protests taking place at the event and within its premises. They also wanted to
protect their students from supposedly dangerous ideas.
Nevertheless, I fail to see the relation
between words and violence. Certainly, people might call for violence with
their words, and that’s a crime. But, as I said earlier, any comments that are
misrepresentative or derogatory toward certain groups cannot be dealt with
simply be censoring or de-platforming. When someone utters deeply xenophobic or
racist insults this is just the result of an ill political, educational,
societal, family system. If we want to change the situation, we need to attack
the system, not merely the individual who is a victim of the system.
SUs and Universities should be champions of
free speech, not the ones who will suppress it.
Obviously, in their terms, they were acting in
good intention and protecting the greater good. However, this behaviour is no
different from the behaviour of religious fundamentalists who send death
threats to people or authoritarian regimes who get rid of their opponents.
Religious fundamentalists and authoritarian
regimes, too, act in good intentions, in their terms, and say that they protect
the greater good.
However, I fail to see how any individual or
organization which de-platforms or censors anyone can act for the greater good.
This is not to say that they are evil – to say that would be a false dichotomy.
They are just not acting for the greater good. Period.
Jacobsen: What were the negative consequences of the aforementioned “positive intentions”? I ask because this goes back to the old aphorism on good intentions leading to bad consequences.
Sofocleous:
As I said, I don’t think these individuals or
organizations are evil or they want to hurt people with their censorship. But what
they are doing goes against any notion of democracy and freedom. It doesn’t
have to be about intentions – because they have neither good nor bad
intentions.
They just want to satisfy the tiny minority of
students who might get offended. But, of course, it is impossible to find a
topic which won’t insult or offend someone. Israel-Palestine, global warming,
veganism, colonialism, capitalism, communism, transgender issues, homosexuality
– it’s impossible to pick a topic in each of these that won’t offend someone.
Does this mean we have to stop arguing in order to not hurt people’s feelings?
No.
Dangerous ideas exist in society and we must
come to know about them. That’s the only way we are going to confront them.
Because if these ideas exist and emerge from underground we will not be ready
to battle them. Let’s face them, challenge them, and eradicate them while there
is still time.
The bad consequences of Bristol SU’s actions
is that they are appeasing a student generation which has learned that it has
the right to determine which ideas others can and cannot hear. This generation
also thinks that it has the right to never feel uncomfortable or even slightly
distressed, or be protected from ideas they do not like. Universities should
mirror society – but the way universities are currently managed and operated
only present an elite and privileged form of society, which differs
substantially from how the real world operates or functions.
Jacobsen: The tweet became the main point of focus for much of the reportage over the last while now, even for stuff on the free speech event, or as if a super-dangerous conspiratorial secret plot to have you – a surreptitious tweeter and panel participant. This is in spite of other interesting writing and news on Mars colonization, clarification in The Spectator on the free speech campus event, or running for Communications Officer in the University of York GSA, etc. You’re a busy person with an intellectual life insofar as I knew and know you. In other words, the idea of ‘opinions being expressed on Twitter.’ Your views tend to come in essays, interviews, and articles, not tweets. The tweet may be offensive to some, but not all. That’s the main point. If individuals wanted to review the personal opinions of yours, they can review some of the articles relevant to the subject matter deemed important by them. As far as I can tell, this was not done by either the SU or the BFSS. Any advice of reading your views before concluding on your moral worth based on one sentence from an old tweet?
Sofocleous:
I said earlier how I thought Twitter will be valuable
for future historians. The modern world has become incredibly fast-paced.
Speed-read a book. Form your opinion about someone’s views in 240 characters or
less. Double-speed your podcast. Digest your daily news in 5 minutes. Get
notifications about every email, every Facebook notification, every Twitter
mention, every Instagram like – it’s become incredibly exhausting and we cannot
keep up with it.
The world has been divided into good and bad
people, everyone you don’t agree with is a fascist and everyone calls each
other names or derogatory terms all the time. We have become extremely
polarised and yet we feel that we need to belong somewhere and adjust to
whatever our ideology dictates. We were never as individualistic as we are now,
in the history of humankind. Yet, we have lost ourselves. Unfortunately, this
comes at a cost of being unable to have a civil discussion with another human
being
Let’s take the time and get to know others,
have a discussion with them about their views, their opinions, their
background, their upbringing, their ideas, their dreams about life. We will
find that we share more than what divides us.
Let’s not conclude one’s moral worth in a
single tweet – we can do much better than that!
Jacobsen:
What’s next?
Sofocleous:
That we have to not conclude someone’s moral worth
from a sentence they uttered does not mean that we should not strive for
justice to be served to those who, having evil intentions, wanted to harm us.
For this reason, I am continuing my appeal to
the Office of the Independent Adjudicator against the University of Durham and
specifically Dr Clare Mac Cumhaill for her harassment and bullying, and Prof
Sophie Gibb and Prof Stephen Mumford for being complicit to harassment and
bullying and for doing absolutely nothing to correct Clare’s behaviour.
I will also be taking legal action.
Other than that, I am continuing my PhD in Philosophy at the University of York, focusing on the phenomenology of depression. Alongside, among other things, I am involved in some publications (Nouse, Secular Nation, The Definite Article), I am active within the Cypriot reconciliation movement, and doing research on a paper and a book review which I’m writing.
Image Credit: Newcastle Chronicle/Angelos Sofocleous.
