The University of Leeds has just cancelled, at a few hours notice, a talk to be given by Matthias Kunzel on the relations between Nazi anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism in the Middle East. It says it has done so on security grounds. (And see also here and here.) Various questions arise from this:
1. The time and place of the talk have been known for weeks. Why did the University act at the last moment? And if it was because the University feels it wasn't notified sufficiently in advance, just how long does it take to arrange security? This talk has already been given without incident in Yale and Vienna. What is it about Leeds University that makes its security measures so much more difficult to organize?These are all questions which obviously arise from the University's actions. Those who took the decision to cancel the talk (and the associated workshop) must have known that such questions would be asked. What answers did they prepare? What answers did they give themselves as they decided to cancel an academic talk on a contested subject - the very kind of activity which a commitment to freedom of speech is supposed to protect? (Eve Garrard)2. What message does this hurried cancellation give to those whose objections seem to have triggered it? What message does it give to all disaffected groups, majority or minority, who would prefer certain topics not to be discussed in public, or at all? What message does it give to the rest of us about which topics are unsafe to discuss, and about the extent to which our universities will support us if we try to discuss them?
3. What is the nature of Leeds University's commitment to academic freedom, and freedom of speech more generally? How does that commitment, whatever it amounts to, actually cash out in action? Is there any kind of threat to which the University wouldn't give way, and if so, why has it given way in this case?