In Light of Ben-Gad
Firstly, before I begin, I must emphasise how appalling the recent events surrounding Professor Ben-Gad are. They are yet another reason I associate modern university life with so much dismay. As someone who loves academia; who values debate, intellectual curiosity and the widening of perspectives, I feel heavy in my heart at what I have witnessed.
Those who take part in harassment and bullying of academics plainly betray the values universities are supposed to uphold. They import violent, coercive politics into places that should be dedicated to reasoned argument. A university is where we test ideas with words, evidence and rigorous exchange; not where we attempt to silence or intimidate colleagues into submission.
What disturbs me about this branch of radical politics on the left is that it often takes a violent form. When protest becomes denunciation, people are reduced to slogans - a lazy job on the accusers’ part, revealing their inability to engage in nuanced criticism or genuine debate. Professor Ben-Gad’s background (being Israeli and having completed compulsory national service - something he did not choose) is used by some as shorthand for everything they disagree with. To hold someone morally accountable for their birthplace or the circumstances of their citizenship is absurd. By that logic, a person born in Germany today would bear responsibility for Hitler’s crimes, a Mongolian for the conquests of Genghis Khan, a Chinese citizen for Mao’s, and a Russian for Stalin’s. No nation’s history is exempt. Such reasoning is both irrational and unjust, yet it has become a familiar trope in modern politics, where inherited guilt is considered a requirement. We see this in the performative remorse demanded of European nations for the deeds of centuries past, as though history itself could be rewritten through endless apology. If we were to follow that logic consistently, every people on Earth: down to the Zulu, the Romans, the Vikings, the Aztecs, and the descendants of those involved in the Barbary slave trade in North Africa (whereby European Christians were captured from coastal towns and sold as slaves) would owe someone an apology. It is absolute absurdity. Perhaps what is needed instead is a little more study of history, and a little less moral posturing.
Who are these protesters when they put themselves on a moral high horse anyway? Are they paragons of virtue, with untarnished lives and histories? I suspect not. Yet they claim the authority to judge and expel, to wave flags and call down institutions with little interest in dialogue. Meanwhile, the professor they target is not even their opponent in the sense of seeking to provoke; he simply wants to do his job.
We must be clear: holding and expressing opinion is protected in a university community; threatening another person’s safety is not. The line between protest and intimidation must be enforced. Where behaviour crosses into slander, harassment, illegal threats or deliberate attempts to coerce staff, there should be appropriate legal and institutional consequences. Universities have an obligation to protect their staff and students, to enforce codes of conduct, and to ensure learning can continue free from fear.
There is a painful irony in recent events. The same logic of ‘cancel culture’ that removed Professor David Miller from his post at the University of Bristol (amid allegations his views created an uncomfortable environment for Jewish students) now seems to be turned against Professor Ben-Gad for different reasons. Both episodes expose an uncomfortable truth: when political activism replaces careful debate, institutions lose the ability to adjudicate fairly. Those who supported Miller’s removal must reckon with how quickly similar pressures can be used against viewpoints they disapprove of.
Watching from a distance, it is alarming to see civility collapse. I cannot help but note how the radical left appears to falter under its own contradictions. A movement that professes to oppose oppression must not itself become oppressive.
I do not support the removal of staff for merely holding unpopular beliefs. If an academic incites violence, breaks laws or professional codes, disciplinary action is appropriate. Protest, however, that seeks to shut down teaching and intimidate colleagues is corrosive. Students should be taught, and expected, to conduct dissent in a way that preserves the rights and safety of others.
Vandalism, intimidation, and a tolerance for divisive behaviour have damaged universities’ reputations as bastions of free inquiry. Acts such as the vandalism of Lord Balfour’s portrait at the University of Cambridge, along with targeted campaigns against staff, demonstrate a troubling lack of respect for institutions, history, and the communities they serve. Such behaviour, whether defacing portraits, historic sites, or other significant symbols, suggests a feral and disrespectful mindset among some youths, who appear to believe such acts are permissible or even a demonstration of superiority. That these individuals are often allowed to continue at their universities without consequence only compounds the problem. Those responsible for criminal acts should be investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted. University security and governance must be proactive and consistent in protecting their communities.
Universities are, at their best, places of intellectual bravery: forums where uncomfortable ideas can be examined and refuted on their merits. If we allow intimidation to replace argument, we will have lost the very purpose of higher education. It is time for universities, and the students within them, to recommit to debate, due process, and the protection of all members of the academic community.
Please and thank you.