the greycat blog

The Oxford Union’s folly continues to bring out the best in everyone, with the unholy Griffin/Irving double-act delayed by protests and a sit-in. The juvenile antics of the Union itself have been paralleled by the immature posturing of the protestors outside, whose definition of free speech means shutting up anyone you don’t agree with. Thus:

Martin Mcluskey, from the Oxford University Students’ Union, said: ‘What we are doing here tonight at the Oxford Union is putting them on a platform that will give them legitimacy and credibility. It is as if we are saying that we agree with what they are saying and that we think it is valid.’

News for you, Martin: freedom of speech means listening to people you don’t necessarily agree with and ideas you don’t necessarily think are valid. And anyone who believes an appearance at the Oxford Union carries an implication of ‘legitimacy and credibility’ is seriously out of touch with reality (even for Oxford).

When I was a student at the University of Oxford in the 1990s I did not join the Oxford Union Society. It seemed to me self-important, self-indulgent, smug, juvenile, stupid, and irrelevant. How right I was. Just after I left Oxford the Union got itself into a mess over an invitation to National Front and later British National Party leader and would-be British führer John Tyndall; ‘free speech’ was the justification. The Tyndall debate was only cancelled after a series of nazi nail-bombings in London in 1999, killing three people and injuring over 100, reminded everyone just how far the extreme right’s commitment to free speech actually extends.

Well, they are doing it again: two prize peddlers of lies and hate, pseudo-historian David Irving and pseudo-politician Nick Griffin, have been invited by the Union to take part in a debate about - guess what - free speech. Both these individuals have a right to state their views (within the law) and the Union has the right to invite whoever it wishes to take part in its activities, but let’s not pretend the invitation has anything to do with great issues of free speech. It’s just another example of Oxford Union immaturity, equivalent to a toddler throwing his breakfast on the floor out of fear of being ignored. The Oxford Union should be ignored. It is a pointless, self-indulgent attention-seeking freak show.

Sadly, it isn’t ignored, however; here I am writing a blog post about it, for instance. Lots of people are fooled by the presence of the name ‘Oxford’ into thinking that it must be something important, like the boat race or that fancy marmalade that isn’t made there any more. People who should know better think it’s in some way an official part of Oxford University (example here). Others have some vague idea that there must be something fine, admirable and even inherently democratic about the place. Alas, no: healthier and better-informed debate, with a much wider and nicer range of people taking part in it, can be found any night of the week in my local pub.

There’s little chance that the Oxford Union will stop playing its silly games, but I live in hope that the world will at least stop paying any attention to them.

Professor Michael Reiss, Head of Science at the University of London’s Institute of Education, says:

‘The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins.’ 

Great. If so, then why not:

‘The days have long gone when geography teachers could ignore flat-earthism when teaching about the earth.’

What should science teachers do when confronted in the classroom with the negation of science that is religious fundamentalism? Give in to it of course. Let the baseless nonsense of creationism be treated with respect, and let the parameters of debate be set by those who, ignorant themselves, want to make sure their children stay ignorant too.

UPDATE: There’s a good post about this at Skeptipedia, and the Virtual Philosopher has some top-notch musings on the issue as well. A post at Counterknowledge.com takes a different view: ‘[Reiss] makes the excellent point that by not simply dismissing Creationism and Intelligent Design, we can explain to children why they do not constitute scientific theories, and why they are not equivalent in status to evolutionary theory’. The question is whether science lessons are the right place for this kind of discussion.