Double feature: Descartes Centre Colloquium + IOS-meeting on academic cancel culture

“What is a good academic conversation?“ – Putting academic freedom into practice

The topic of academic freedom and having a good conversation are related in an interesting duplicity. On the one hand, academia prides itself for its high standards in conducting conversations (debates, discussions, ...) even about the most controversial topics, in such a way that these conversations can, while being controversial, be fruitful, respectful, constructive. On the other hand, academia requires, and explicitly or implicitly uses, standards for deciding which questions are researchable, and for how a question should be researched. In these negotiations the difference between ‘academic freedom’ and the ‘freedom to express one’s opinion’ becomes relevant. Both of these concepts are themselves put to work, frequently in very polarizing ways, in current conflicts that profoundly affect academia, and academia’s relation with society at large.

In a double feature of two events, we (‘we’ being, in no particular order: the Descartes Centre, the strategic theme IOS, and all interested colleagues, most broadly conceived) want to investigate these questions.

Good academic conversation

On 20 January we want to explore the topic of the “good academic conversation”. This will be done via a number of brief stimulus presentations (Maurits de Jongh, political philosophy, department Philosophy and Religious Studies; Ralph Meulenbroeks, science studies/scientific literacy, director Freudenthal Institute ((more details will be announced as soon as possible)), followed by a good academic conversation about a controversial issue. Given the fact that we already referred to boundaries between academia and other societal players, an obvious topic could be the idea of a new compartmentalization (in Dutch: “nieuwe verzuiling”) of society, along the lines of academia versus the rest: are we indeed living and working in a bubble? If so: what are mechanisms behind keeping this bubble intact? What can we do in order to be more open to divergent voices in society? This should give us insights into both this topic itself, but also into the principles required for a fruitful conversation, and into whether, and if so, how, academic conversations are different from other conversations.

Dieter Schönecker

This event will be followed on 21 January with philosopher Dieter Schönecker, who will discuss philosophical the question “What is wrong with academic cancel culture (and what’s not)?” 

Schönecker will argue that academic cancel culture does indeed exist; that it would be misleading to accuse wokeism of moralism and activism; that there are (obviously) limits to academic freedom; and that, nevertheless, there are three good arguments for upholding a strong and liberal concept of academic freedom: the argument from autonomy, the argument from fallibilism, and the argument from democracy.

Dieter Schönecker is Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Siegen. His research focuses on Kant's practical philosophy, normative ethics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of academic freedom; he has also published two volumes of poetry. He is a founding member of the "Netzwerk Wissenschaftsfreiheit" and spokesperson for its philosophy section.

Feel most cordially invited to join these events, as a double feature, or individually – and let us get into, and continue to be, in good conversations about these and other questions!