What is really being asked is a pretence

We heard from Nick Cohen last week on the battle in Cambridge between a demand from the university authorities that people 'be respectful of' the opinions of others, and a rebellious faction who see this as an unwelcome attack on free speech, and would substitute 'tolerance' for 'respect'.  The critics have managed to force a vote on the matter.

There's a piece on this in today's Sunday Times, with a fine contribution from Stephen Fry - ‘Respect’? This is thought control:

Doubtless for the best motives, a rather muddled insistence on automatic “respect” is being injected into Cambridge University’s free speech policy.

A demand for respect is like a demand for a laugh, or demands for love, loyalty and allegiance. They cannot be given if not felt.

There are many opinions, positions and points of view which I find I do not and cannot respect. That is surely true for all us.

Even if someone were to pull out a gun, point it at my head and demand respect for their opinion, I could not with any honesty offer it. Fear and dread would certainly elicit a trembling acquiescence — but real respect? That cannot be supplied to order. It comes from somewhere else.

To be forced to feel other than we do is manifestly an impossibility. Therefore what is really being asked is a pretence, a display of lip-service, which in a university whose reputation is founded on empirical and rational inquiry, open argument and free thought, is surely inimical.

Not sure I'd agree with that rather weak 'inimical' there, though. 'Preposterous' might be better. Or 'ridiculous', 'fatuous'....

Doubtless we can all hope for respectful attitudes in matters of debate and interpersonal exchange — much as we hope for friendly manners in all circumstances — but to burn respect into statutes and protocols is absurd, or worse. Such an impulse tips over the line into thought control.

A free mind is obliged to respect only the truth. There is so much passion and distress fomenting the debate on campus freedom and academic discussion that decisions are made and policies implemented on the basis of fear rather than reason or sense.

This has nothing to do with “sides” or particular issues. Think of the human attitude or political philosophy you believe to be among the most wicked and dangerous in the world. Do you consent to being forced to respect it?

Perhaps what is meant is that Cambridge wants decorum and politeness. These are codes, much like a dress code, to which any reasonable person might be expected to conform. But please do not tell us what to think and feel.

Comments

[Mar Lizaro]

Yes, 'respect' can be interpreted in several ways. This is why it is so dangerous for it to appear, as a demand, in a statue book. Reminds me of Heidegger, unfortunately.