The Closing Of The British Mind? Brexit, Eu Academics, Too Authorities Advice

Steve Peers

Rightly or wrongly, the Brexit vote is widely perceived equally existence (among other things) an assail upon academic expertise. This tin survive neatly demonstrated yesteryear this anecdote of i telephone substitution I had on Twitter:

*Daily Express forepart page headline: NEW European Union PLOT TO TAX BRITISH EVERYTHING*

Me (quoting Express headline): This is nonsense. *Again*, the United Kingdom of Great Britain too Northern Ireland of Britain too Northern Republic of Ireland has a veto over European Union taxation law.

Troll: No, the European Union is plotting to accept command of our taxes.

Me: The veto is laid upward out inwards Articles 113 too 115 TFEU.

Troll: No, the European Union is plotting to accept command of our taxes.

Me: OK then. Have a prissy twenty-four hours inwards your post-truth world.

Troll: Patronising c***.

Me: *blocks*.

That’s the gist of the conversation: I don’t holler back the exact words, except that word inwards particular. I had many such conversations, but that i distils the essence of them all. (As always, I acknowledge an honourable exception for ‘liberal Leavers’, who to a greater extent than oft than non do empathise the European Union too had a detailed conception for Brexit. And at nowadays they are existence ignored inwards turn).

Equally – over again rightly or wrongly – the Brexit vote is existence widely perceived equally existence equally an assail upon European Union citizens inwards the UK. These 2 issues merge together inwards a dispute which has attracted attending over the final 2 days. It concerns the alleged policy adopted yesteryear the Foreign too Commonwealth Office (FCO), equally applied to the London School of Economics (LSE),* ‘banning’ citizens of other European Union countries from giving the authorities policy advice most Brexit. We can’t survive sure as shooting what genuinely happened, but what probably happened?  

We create know that inwards the class of a conversation betwixt LSE staff members too FCO staff, the LSE staff got the impression that the FCO no longer wanted to hear Brexit advice from citizens of other Member States. LSE staff sent an electronic mail to staff to that effect. One staff fellow member objected on social media. This caused a tempest on Twitter (which I played a component in), too the even was picked upward yesteryear newspapers: The Guardian, amid others. This came at the cease of a calendar week of authorities policy announcements perceived equally xenophobic. The FCO denies it said such a thing. The LSE insists that it did.

I run into 2 fundamental questions: a) Who’s right? And b) Should the LSE direct hold done what it did? (Whatever that genuinely was).

Who is right?

By i reading, it mightiness survive a mistake, or mightiness peradventure survive a uncomplicated misunderstanding. I concur that it could just be a misunderstanding. But I think it’s to a greater extent than probable that it was an FCO policy, too the LSE, or at to the lowest degree parts of it, constitute a way to object too scupper the policy.

Why create I think that? Mainly because, equally an academic for over xx years, I direct hold daily sense with academy administration. (By ‘administration’, I’m referring both to full-time administrators, too also the administrative roles of those academics who direct hold administrative tasks amongst their educational activity too research, equally most of us do). University administrators pass much of their fourth dimension grappling with details of authorities policy – on enquiry funding, pupil funding, admissions too immigration, for instance. It’s real of import that they empathise too apply relevant authorities policy correctly, since the large bulk of academy funding depends on it. They brand enormous efforts to that end. (Of course, many academics study authorities policy inwards their champaign of expertise too, but that’s a dissimilar issue).

In calorie-free of that, I detect it difficult to believe that the LSE misunderstood what it was existence told yesteryear the FCO. Anyone involved inwards academy direction who was told that sure as shooting staff could no longer function on a authorities projection would continue holler for questions most what they were existence told.

Having said that, I also detect it difficult to believe that the FCO would advise the LSE of a policy that would survive challenged equally existence illegal, xenophobic too self-harming. Years ago, I sat the entrance examine to function inwards the United Kingdom of Great Britain too Northern Ireland of Britain too Northern Republic of Ireland civil service. I listed the FCO equally i of the departments I wanted to function in. I passed the entrance examine too got to the interview stage. But at the interview, I was told that I was existence considered for other departments, but non the FCO, since the FCO had a special, higher cut-off bespeak for candidates who sat the exam. As they told me (and hither I create holler back all of these words exactly): “You’re the cream, but non the cream of the cream”. Perhaps that would brand a goodness epitaph.

Indeed, I direct hold met with FCO staff over the years, too direct hold ever been impressed yesteryear their aplomb, expertise, too professionalism. So I create detect it remarkable that they would railroad train such a crass novel policy, too non either laid upward out formally or brand that policy perfectly clear to the LSE.

So maybe something has changed inwards the FCO inwards the final few months? To inquire that query is to response it: a boorish novel Foreign Secretary, whose appointment was met with ridicule worldwide. Or perhaps, less obviously, the novel Prime Minister’s principal of staff, Nick Timothy, who has suggested a policy (now echoed inwards the Home Secretary’s vox communication to the Conservative political party conference) that would eviscerate the bulk of British universities, yesteryear banning them from enrolling unusual students, all inwards maniacal pursuit of a disastrous internet migration target. To survive fair, though, equally a Russell Group university, the LSE would survive i of the few left standing if that policy is carried out. It is quite striking that an FCO official involved with the alleged LSE policy retweeted my rigid criticism of it. 

Should the LSE direct hold done what it did?

If I’m right inwards thinking that at that topographic point was a authorities policy, what could the LSE direct hold done? First of all, it could only direct hold gone along with the government’s policy. Perhaps at that topographic point are other universities which have gone along with it; obviously, nosotros wouldn't know if at that topographic point were. Secondly, it could direct hold queried the policy tactfully, yesteryear holler for the authorities to set it inwards writing, or quietly raising questions most its appropriateness. Thirdly, it could direct hold publicly challenged it, yesteryear demanding a clarification. Fourthly, it could adopt a passive-aggressive policy, nominally non challenging it but informing its staff, with the large likelihood that the final result would survive populace questioning too a backlash against the idea. This is, inwards effect, what has happened. Or peradventure it couldn’t concur a policy, or a staff fellow member decided to dissent against the policy, with the effect that the previous choice has exclusively been triggered yesteryear default.

So which choice should it direct hold taken? An opened upward challenge (option 3) would select dorsum the quondam days, when the LSE gained a reputation equally a hotbed of radical protest. But those days are long gone; the LSE is at nowadays run with a managerial focus on surviving inwards a highly competitive environment. Certain other British universities direct hold travelled the same route fifty-fifty faster. Option 1 would hateful acceding to a policy which was legally too ethically highly dubious.

So the selection is betwixt options 2 too 4. Option 2 would survive the most diplomatic, too would survive the usual way of querying a questionable authorities policy. Option 4 has the wages of embarrassing the authorities into changing its policy, without the academy having to brand challenge directly.

In my view, the latter (or choice 3) is clearly the right choice, for broader reasons. In a calendar week where the authorities has talked most expelling unusual doctors, ‘naming too shaming’ companies with unusual employees, too banning most universities from admitting unusual students, it’s of import to accept a populace stand. If the British remove heed is closing, academics must, offset too foremost, brand the illustration for keeping it open.  

Photo credit: lsesuwomeninbusiness.org.uk

See also: David Allen Green's spider web log post on this issue, 

*In the interests of transparency: I direct hold a grade from the LSE, too direct hold taught at that topographic point part-time inwards the past, but direct hold no electrical flow links – equally good a commitment to speak at the launch of Professor Conor Gearty’s first-class novel human rights book, On Fantasy Island, on Dec 8.

Share this post