Free speech and peculiar opinions
There was a reason for my choice of the two quotes for today from Noam Chomsky - a men about which I agree with hardly anything else - who said that if we don't believe for free speech for views we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
I was inspired to make that choice of quote because I was deeply disappointed to read that a professor at my old University has said something that I find quite shameful.
You may be surprised to learn that what he has said to offend me was an attack on the new Leader of the Labour party.
You may be less surprised if I explain that the professor concerned appears to think the problem with Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party is that it was too tough on people accused of Anti-Semitism.
He also thinks that the new leader has basically been bought by "the Zionist movement."
Professor David Miller thinks that Sir Keir will sweep any investigation into the leak of the Labour Anti-Semitism report under the carpet because his leadership campaign received a donation from a prominent Labour donor and philanthropist, Sir Trevor Chinn, who happens to be Jewish and a supporter of the Jewish community.
Professor Miller said in an online broadcast, in reference to the leaked report, that
"We are obviously not going to get a proper investigation of this by Comrade Starmer or by Lisa Nandy – who have been in receipt of money from the Zionist movement, from Trevor Chinn."
Which brings me back to my quote of the day.
I don't believe my old University should take disciplinary action against the professor for this, because if you don't believe in free speech for views you despise, then you don't believe in free speech.
But perhaps the University of Bristol might consider making clear that Professor Miller's views are his own and he does not speak for the University.
I was inspired to make that choice of quote because I was deeply disappointed to read that a professor at my old University has said something that I find quite shameful.
You may be surprised to learn that what he has said to offend me was an attack on the new Leader of the Labour party.
You may be less surprised if I explain that the professor concerned appears to think the problem with Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party is that it was too tough on people accused of Anti-Semitism.
He also thinks that the new leader has basically been bought by "the Zionist movement."
Professor David Miller thinks that Sir Keir will sweep any investigation into the leak of the Labour Anti-Semitism report under the carpet because his leadership campaign received a donation from a prominent Labour donor and philanthropist, Sir Trevor Chinn, who happens to be Jewish and a supporter of the Jewish community.
Professor Miller said in an online broadcast, in reference to the leaked report, that
"We are obviously not going to get a proper investigation of this by Comrade Starmer or by Lisa Nandy – who have been in receipt of money from the Zionist movement, from Trevor Chinn."
Which brings me back to my quote of the day.
I don't believe my old University should take disciplinary action against the professor for this, because if you don't believe in free speech for views you despise, then you don't believe in free speech.
But perhaps the University of Bristol might consider making clear that Professor Miller's views are his own and he does not speak for the University.
Comments
Just so there can be no misunderstanding, is the rest of your post from "The result was" onwards a statement of your own opinions or your description of his?
The first time I read your post I thought you were agreeing with the views expressed, but on a more careful reading I realised that this might be a mistaken inference.
I didn't want to make any response other than the request for clarification until that was sorted out.
Given how careful you have been not to express an opinion in favour of or against the views concerned, up to the word "So," I would hope it would be obvious why I might want an institution which I care about and have supported for many years to do the same.