Unis are doing a fine job of stomping on anyone thinking outside the square

A note of common sense from the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, Bjorn Lomborg, in The Australian, Wednesday:

Despite lofty rhetoric from Paris, all the best intentions on the planet will count for little if it turns out that our climate “solution” was just another policy that cost the planet far more than it gained.

That’s the same professor that Tim Wilson, then human rights commissioner, referred to in The Australian, May 11, 2015:

The University of Western Australia’s decision to reject Bjorn Lomborg’s Australian Consensus Centre is disturbing for its validation of a culture of soft censorship ... Lomborg heretically thinks that tackling infectious diseases that kill millions is more important than cutting greenhouse gas levels. UWA academics claimed the centre “tarnishes the reputation of the university”. The UWA student guild claimed “students, staff and alumni alike are outraged” because a centre would be “led by someone with a controversial track record”. The campaign of outrage eventually led to vice-chancellor Paul Johnson cancelling the centre because it lacked support from the academic community.

Those students and staff involved at UWA have successfully adopted a cancerous tactic from Britain called “no platforming”.

Wilson concluded:

If the evidence Lomborg collects to answer these questions is wrong, then it should be exposed through evidence and reason. If they’re right then they will be influential. Instead, UWA essentially endorsed a culture of soft censorship by stopping these public policy questions even being asked. It’s hard to think of a more anti-intellectual act.

An example of no-platforming? ABC news, online, May 9, 2015:

UWA student guild president Lizzy O’Shea said students were concerned about the impact the centre ... could have on the university’s reputation. “It’s a really good sign ... that if enough people have mobilised against something, and don’t support it, that people will change their minds. The fact that we had international partners saying they wanted to pull out because of the association. So reputational damage was probably the main complaint.”

Egregious hysteria? Jennifer Oriel, The Australian, April 29, 2015:

For a group that pontificates on the evils of xenophobia and social exclusion, Australian academics are doing a great job of ensuring that incoming Bjorn Lomborg feels unwelcome. His appointment to lead a policy centre at UWA Australia has induced a quasi-articulate hysteria not witnessed since Henny Penny mistook the acorn for the apocalypse.

It’s catching. Rebecca Urban in The Australian, December 9, 2017:

Australian universities have become increasingly hostile to free speech, with an audit finding most campuses have instituted policies, guidelines or charters that prohibit students from making “insulting” or “unwelcome” comments, telling “offensive jokes” or ... engaging in “sarcasm”. Analysis by the Institute of Public Affairs has revealed 81 per cent of Australia’s 42 universities are hostile to free speech on campus as a result of censorious policies or actions taken by administrators or students.

Matthew Lesh, writing for ABC news online, October 3, 2017:

Academic freedom is increasingly under threat on Australian campuses, and widespread speech codes leave universities unprepared to combat the danger. The latest threat comes from ... Chinese students, on four known occasions this year, have pressured academics to modify material to align with Chinese government foreign policy. At the University of Newcastle, a lecturer who listed Hong Kong and Taiwan as separate territories faced social media condemnation and even Chinese consulate pressure.