Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Brexit: how can we take control?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Seven years on from the historic decision to leave the EU, British voters may be left wondering when exactly they get to ‘take back control’. While it is true that decision-making has (mostly) reverted from Brussels to Westminster, it often feels like we have had all the downsides of Brexit with few benefits.
Leaving the EU has not been the disaster that many people – including the leading lights in politics and business – predicted. But there’s been precious little sign that the demand for wider transformation – whether it is raising living standards, controlling the UK’s borders or a sense that politicians are really paying attention to the concerns of voters – has been met.
But perhaps all this is missing the point. As the authors of Taking Control: Sovereignty and Democracy after Brexit argue, the EU is not a supranational nanny state, nor an internationalist peace project. It is the means by which Europe’s elites transformed their own states in order to rule the void where representative politics used to be. From this point of view, leaving the EU is a necessary but not sufficient step towards closing the chasm between rulers and ruled.
When the current government looks spent of ideas and the main opposition hardly looks much better, politics is in a dysfunctional state. Is political life now destined to be forever moribund or is there a way forward that can strengthen representative democracy and improve the lives of everyone across the UK? Whatever happened to ‘power to the people’?
SPEAKERSDr Philip Cunliffeassociate professor, Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction, UCL; author, The New Twenty Years’ Crisis 1999-2019: a critique of international relations and Cosmopolitan Dystopia; co-host, Aufhebunga Bunga podcast
James Hallwoodhead of policy and external affairs, Council of Deans of Health
Baroness Kate Hoeynon-aligned peer, House of Lords; former Labour MP; former sports minister; former unpaid commissioner for sport, London Mayor's office; Leave campaigner
James Hollandwriter and political consultant; Leave campaigner; former communications director, European Conservatives and Reformists Party
Peter Ramsayprofessor of law, London School of Economics and Political Science; author, Taking Control: Sovereignty and Democracy After Brexit
CHAIRRobert Hoeyconsultant

Bodies that matter: transgenderism and transhumanism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In her recent book, Transgender Body Politics, author and philosopher Heather Brunskell-Evans takes to task the politics of transgenderism. She argues that, for years, Gender Identity Development Theory has become increasingly accepted as a medically ‘progressive’ idea, yet one that bears all the hallmarks of a religion.
According to this modern creed, Brunskell-Evans argues, gender is believed to be independent of the physical body, resembling something akin to a ‘soul’ which should take precedence over biological sex. Centring on values such as equality, gender diversity and inclusion, it is backed by symbols such as chants, flags, parades and ‘holy’ days. There is a belief in secular transubstantiation – that boys can become women and girls can become men. Organisations like Stonewall, Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence act like a secular clergy, giving ‘sermons’ on right-think in training workshops. Critical individuals are denounced as infidels and detransitioners are akin to apostates.
Has the recent closure of the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the NHS Tavistock Clinic turned the tide on this development? Has wider society begun to seriously debate the consequences of young people undergoing unnecessary sex-change surgery that could have lifelong implications for them? Or is it simply the first siren call to a much larger cultural phenomenon which reveals a thriving, well-funded and unaccountable transhumanist movement that should be firmly on our radar?
In this special lecture for the Battle of Ideas festival, Heather Brunskell-Evans presents the findings and thoughts contained in her book. Three respondents will then kickstart a discussion aimed at getting to grips with important issues surrounding transgender politics.
SPEAKERSDr Heather Brunskell-Evansphilosopher; co-founder, Women's Declaration International; author, Transgender Body Politics
Sonia Gallegosenior producer and reporter, Al Jazeera English
Marc Glendeninghead of cultural affairs, Institute of Economic Affairs; author, Transgender Ideology: a new threat to liberal values
Rosie Kaydancer; choreographer; CEO and artistic director, K2CO LTD; founder, Freedom in the Arts
CHAIRTimandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; author, Big Data: does size matter?

Capitalism and the working class: a love-hate relationship

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
We live in contradictory and often confusing times. How do we explain why millions consistently dumbfound and dismay the Left by their love of mass consumption and their acceptance of the logic of commerce – while, at the same time, expressing mass revulsion at inequality, exploitation, unfairness, and greed? Why have so many on the Left embraced identity politics, while showing contempt for ‘Red Wall’ voters and traditional working-class values? And what can young radicals learn about fighting today’s battles from analysing the insights of past activism?
In The Embrace of Capital, Don Milligan recounts and analyses why working people have developed a love-hate relationship with capitalism. What can we learn about the fate of Left-wing politics, from someone who has a long history of radical, social and political activism? 
SPEAKERSDr Don Milliganwriter and social commentator; author, The Embrace of Capital
CHAIRDr Michael Owensurban planning consultant and lecturer; author, Play the Game

Holding Covid times to account

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
It can sometimes feel as though the whole lockdown period was a bad dream. Did it really happen? Most of the population might wish to forget and move on. Even while the fallout is still having a profound impact – such as the 140,000-plus ‘ghost children’ who haven’t returned to school after lockdown – there can be a reluctance to face up to what happened.
Perhaps we are suffering from an awkward defensiveness about having allowed our liberties to be suspended so easily. Did we really let the UK parliament declare itself ‘non-essential’ and shut down, only to reopen with legislation in place that allowed the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, to rule by decree? It is almost too depressing to remember that, for months on end, we were banned from leaving the house without a state-sanctioned excuse. Police rifled through people’s shopping baskets and arrested people for sitting on benches. We deprived children of schooling. Did we really sit by as diktats were issued on everything from casual sex to singing?
By now, there’s widespread cynicism about whether the public inquiry into the UK’s handling of the pandemic will really ‘rigorously and candidly’ investigate the government’s actions. Public hearings are not expected to end until 2026, but it already seems to have accepted the conventional, ‘expert’ narrative that the suspension of liberty was essential to save lives.
So, who will explore more sceptical lines of enquiry about the cost of lockdown – to freedom, education, social services, health and the economy? Three authors – Jennie Bristow, Laura Dodsworth and Thomas Fazi – have tackled the topic in new ways – writing accounts to help us learn lessons and allow a proper debate about the rights and wrongs of lockdown. Can we investigate this dark period without going down rabbit holes, obsessively demanding retribution or getting stuck in a grievance loop? Do we need to free ourselves from the ‘new normal’ by getting some closure on the old one?
SPEAKERSJennie Bristowsenior lecturer in sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University; author, The Corona Generation: coming of age in a crisis and Growing up in Lockdown
Laura Dodsworthwriter; photographer; author, Free Your Mind and A State of Fear
Thomas Fazijournalist and writer; author, The Battle for Europe: how an elite hijacked a continent - and how we can take it back and The Covid Consensus: the global assault on democracy and the poor - a critique from the Left
CHAIRViv Reganmanaging editor, spiked; director, Young Journalists' Academy

Gagged cartoonists: is satire still possible?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Ever since the days of William Hogarth and Edward Linley Sambourne, cartoonists have gleefully poked a disrespectful finger in the eye of the political establishment, using attention-grabbing drawings and incisive wit to expose pomposity, pretension and hypocrisy.
The power of cartoons to threaten the status quo has prompted repressive regimes to jail cartoonists – such as Atena Farghadani in Iran, Musa Kart in Turkey and Jiang Yefei in China. Yet in the proudly ‘liberal’ West, cartoons are increasingly being subject to censorship. Many creators have lost their livelihoods, or even their lives, for their work or views.
In recent years, Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell’s long-running If… was cancelled, while his colleague Martin Rowson was praised for conceding and apologising for anti-Semitic motifs in one of his recent cartoons. Stella Perrett was fired from the Morning Star after complaints that her cartoon about women’s single-sex spaces was ‘transphobic’. Most tragically, the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were murdered for offending radical Muslims.
Following a series of cartoon-related controversies, the New York Times stopped publishing daily political cartoons altogether, in favour of long-form visual journalism that expresses ‘nuance, complexity and strong voice from a diversity of viewpoints across all of our platforms’. Is publishing political cartoons simply too big a risk to take in the midst of a divisive culture war?
What is the role of political cartoons today? The Spectator’s Fraser Nelson argues that ‘cartoonists lampoon everyone and everything and have done for centuries’. But can a medium that thrives on caricature, exaggeration and righteous anger operate in a ‘be kind’ culture which shrinks from causing offence? Or are we seeing an overdue corrective that will encourage cartoonists to refocus their bile on targets that truly deserve it?
SPEAKERSDr Graham Barnfieldconsultant; founder, Emalone Books; former senior lecturer in journalism
Andy Daveyfreelance cartoonist
Stella Perrettcartoonist, Radical Cartoons; author and illustrator, 2020, The Year We Were All Cancelled; women's rights campaigner
CHAIRHarley Richardsonchief product officer, OxEd and Assessment; organiser, AoI Education Forum; blogger, historyofeducation.net; author, The Liberating Power of Education

Should burning holy books be banned?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In August 2023, the Danish government proposed a bill banning the public burning of the Holy Koran, stating that it will send an ‘important political signal’ to the rest of the world. Sweden is also considering amending legal bills which will give greater police powers to refuse permits for such demonstrations. The recent acts of public burning of the Koran have become a national security issue for both countries, with threats by foreign Islamic governments, as well as Russia, and domestic threats to security internally.
The public desecration of the Koran has not only been enacted by far-right organisations against their perceived fear of Islamisation of their countries. Salwan Momika, a refugee in Sweden from Iraq, set fire to pages of the Koran outside a Swedish mosque on the first day of Eid. Allegedly defending freedom of speech, Momika said: ‘this is a democracy. It is in danger if they tell us we can’t do this.’ The Iranian Danish artist Firoozeh Bazrafkan recently staged a public-art action outside the Iranian embassy where she shredded the Koran with a kitchen grater. Bazrafkan described her performance as a tribute to the brave women and men of Iran struggling for freedom.
While holy books are not being burned outside embassies in the UK, there have been protests and public rows about the Koran. Four boys were suspended from Kettlethorpe High School in Wakefield – including one autistic pupil – after a Koran was allegedly dropped in a corridor. Police became involved, and the child’s parents were even asked to engage in a filmed public apology. Meanwhile, revenge attacks have taken place in Pakistan with the burning down of Christian churches after the Koran was allegedly desecrated.
Should there be limits to freedom of expression, especially regarding the desecration of holy books? Most incidents have involved the Koran – is it easy to defend the desecration of a sacred text when it is not your own? Would opposition to law changes be softened if it were the Bible being burned in town centres or mistreated in schools? Can we defend free speech but oppose acts that encourage violent reactions – especially those which might pose a threat to national or domestic security and to peoples’ lives? Or should Western governments stay out of policing political, religious acts of protest – however offensive – for fear of creating new blasphemy laws?
SPEAKERSManick Govindaguest co-curator, Culture Tensions, Ujazdowski Castle Centre for Contemporary Art, Warsaw, Poland
Khadija Khanjournalist and commentator
Lois McLatchiesenior communications officer, ADF UK; commentator
Hardeep Singhjournalist, author
Peter Whittlefounder and director, New Culture Forum; host, NCF YouTube channel
CHAIRDr Piers Bennphilosopher, author and lecturer

Last Orders Podcast - live

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
A special live recording of Last Orders, the spiked podcast all about freedom and the nanny state.
This is the show where Christopher Snowdon, from the Institute of Economic Affairs, and Tom Slater, editor of spiked, discuss the latest in modern-day puritanism – from killjoy attempts to clamp down on smoking, drinking, ‘junk food’ and assorted other vices to the never-ending campaign to cleanse speech and culture of anything the least bit offensive.
SPEAKERSPatrick Christyspresenter, GB News; former presenter, Drive Time, talkRADIO; former local reporter
Madeline Grantcolumnist, assistant comment editor and parliamentary sketchwriter, Telegraph; former editorial manager, Institute of Economic Affairs
Tom Slatereditor, spiked; co-host, spiked podcast and Last Orders
Christopher Snowdonhead of lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; editor, Nanny State Index; author, Killjoys

Academics building academic freedom from the ground up

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The first Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF) branch was formed at the University of Edinburgh in March 2022. In the time since, AFAF has grown rapidly with branches now covering over 20 universities. This is a unique achievement in the face of threats and intimidation by censorious individuals and groups.
All AFAF branches and their membership are committed to freedom of speech and the promotion of open debate and discussion. AFAF offers an independent voice as universities work out how to respond to the requirements of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which charges universities with a duty to champion free speech and academic freedom.
Branches have focused on a variety of issues, such as reviewing policy papers, defending individuals with controversial views, opposing ideological imposition by university administrators and management, and ensuring that there is viewpoint diversity throughout the disciplines.
AFAF’s ambition is to open branches in every university in the UK. Come along to hear about this compelling free speech success story – and to find out about how you too can get involved!
SPEAKERSDr Firat Cengizsenior lecturer in law, University of Liverpool
Dr Ruth Mieschbuehlersenior lecturer in education studies, Institute of Education, University of Derby; author, The Racialisation of Campus Relations
Professor Ian Pacepianist and professor of music at City, University of London
CHAIRDennis Hayesprofessor of education, University of Derby; founder and director, Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF); author, The Death of Academic Freedom? Free speech and censorship

How far should protest go?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Contemporary protests raise tricky dilemmas for those committed to free speech and civil rights. Protests by Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil have caused traffic mayhem and disrupted major sporting events. There have been Muslim pickets at cinemas and schools. Women using abortion services have been intimidated and upset by pro-life protesters outside clinics, while pro-choice protesters have picketed the homes of US judges. In each case, the right to protest seems to conflict with other rights. Other forms of protest – like pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the wake of the Hamas invasion of Israel – are deeply offensive to many.
To date, British police have taken a fairly ‘hands off’ approach to dealing with environmental protests, leading some civilians to take matters into their own hands by dragging road-blocking protesters away. Causing inconvenience is one thing, but many have complained that the protesters ignore the serious damage being done in missed hospital appointments and lost earnings.
But perhaps there are signs that the authorities are tiring of these stunts. Pro-life campaigners have been banned from ‘buffer zones’ around abortion clinics. Insulate Britain’s Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker received substantial prison sentences after their protest shut the M25 at Dartford in October last year. However, the prison sentences faced criticism. Former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger declared that the English have ‘a rather proud record of not incarcerating non-violent protestors acting on a matter of conscience’ and suggested that the UK was becoming less tolerant.
How far is too far when it comes to protests? Should the UK follow France in banning pro-Palestinian protests? Does an honest belief that we live in an ‘emergency’ situation justify widespread disruption? Who decides what is acceptable or not?
SPEAKERSCharlie Bentley-Astorwriter; commentator; free-speech advocate
Mark Johnsonadvocacy manager, Big Brother Watch
Kevin O’Sullivanpresenter, TalkRADIO and TalkTV; reporter; showbiz editor; media correspondent; features editor
Sarah Phillimorebarrister; campaigner, Fair Cop
CHAIRSally Millarddirector of finance; co-founder, AoI Parents Forum

Are slippery-slope arguments ever valid?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘It’s a slippery slope’ is a phrase often used in politics. But the ‘thin end of a wedge’ argument can be complicated. If being flexible means always being open to abuse, how will we ever make any change? Why we can’t we simply decide to go a little way down the slope, rather than follow it to ruin?
On the one hand, it’s clear that some slippery slopes really are treacherous – many point to the government’s Online Safety Bill as an example of censorious legislation characterised as ‘safeguarding’ that opens the door to much broader restrictions of free speech. On the other hand, the slippery-slope argument can be used to counteract any suggestion of change, for fear of undesirable consequences. For example, some argue that the liberalisation of abortion law will lead to an increase in late-term abortions, or that the legalisation of assisted suicide will lead to a more callous approach to human life.
Slippery-slope arguments are nearly always conservative, in the sense of maintaining the status quo – and can often be used to simply shut down debate about moral issues that need serious consideration. If they rest on a hypothetical fear of change, should we resist their use? When policies and laws change, can’t we be trusted to know where the line should be drawn? Or, in a world where rules and boundaries seem terribly unfashionable, do we need such arguments to protect us from consequences we might come to regret?
SPEAKERSDr Piers Bennphilosopher, author and lecturer
Dr Heather Brunskell-Evansphilosopher; co-founder, Women's Declaration International; author, Transgender Body Politics
Professor David Albert Jonesdirector, Anscombe Bioethics Centre; professor of bioethics, St Mary’s University, Twickenham; vice chair, Ministry of Defence Research Ethics Committee
Professor Kevin Yuillemeritus professor of history, University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: the liberal, humanist case against legalization and Richard Nixon and the Rise of Affirmative Action
CHAIRJohn O’Brienhead of communications, MCC Brussels

Schools: the great expulsion debate

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Bad behaviour in the classroom – particularly in secondary schools – is a big problem. The government’s first national survey into pupil behaviour, published this year, revealed that 40 per cent of pupils ‘feel unsafe each week because of poor behaviour’. Teachers, fed up with playing policemen, are clearly feeling the strain – 40,000 (almost nine per cent of the workforce) left state schools in 2021-22 before retirement. And while knife arches and bag searches have been commonplace for a while in some schools, tensions seem to have escalated. Earlier this year, armed officers were called to Tewkesbury Academy in Gloucestershire after a pupil stabbed a teacher.
How should teachers handle unruly kids? In the last school term of 2022, 183,817 pupils were suspended from schools in England. Some schools have adopted a hold-no-prisoners approach to discipline, including silent corridors, zero-tolerance of school uniform infractions and sanctions for turning up to class without pen or paper. This has been deployed with most notable effect at Michaela Community School in London.
Supporters of this approach argue that without such measures, classrooms become petty fiefdoms of the worst behaved. But not everyone is a fan – Great Yarmouth Academy made headlines after parents mounted a social-media campaign accusing its disciplinary procedures of harming their children. Critics argue that a disciplinarian approach turns schools into prisons, with disadvantaged children suffering as a result. One morally tricky issue is that schools seem to be suspending and excluding many children with special educational needs (SENs). SENs are over four times more likely to get a fixed-term exclusion than other children. Some parents of SEN kids claim that for all the rhetoric of ‘inclusion and access’, schools not only don’t provide adequate support and resources to aid their child’s learning but actively exclude and discriminate against them. Do these parents have a point?
What are teachers to do when some pupils with very challenging conditions including autism, ADHD and a spectrum of other special educational needs engage in behaviours and actions that disrupt the learning of others – and, at times, can be abusive and even violent? Is it legitimate to argue mainstream schools are not for them, with special and specialist schools more able to cater for their needs?
Naughty kids have always pushed the boundaries, so what’s behind the exponential rise in bad behaviour and expulsions? Are higher SEN exclusion rates discriminatory, or necessitated by a bottom line expectation of minimum behaviour standards in mainstream schools? And while disciplinarian schools often boast better results, has this gone too far, stymying teachers’ ability to form informal relationships with their students – and sucking the fun and friendliness out of schooling?
SPEAKERSDave Clementswriter; school governor; public servant
Michael Merrickdirector of schools, Diocese of Lancaster; former teacher; education and social commentator
Stella O'Malleypsychotherapist; director, Genspect; author, What Your Teen is Trying to Tell You
Dr Tony Sewell CBEchair, Generating Genius; chairman, The Sewell Report; former chair, Race and Ethnic Disparities Commission
CHAIRKevin Rooneyhistory and politics teacher; editor, irishborderpoll.com; convenor, AoI Education Forum; co-author, The Blood Stained Poppy

Ofsted: cruel judgement or making schools accountable?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Since its creation in 1992, Ofsted has rarely been out of education headlines. Ofsted’s role is to inspect schools and regulate educational standards across England. However, Ofsted inspections are notorious amongst teachers for the intense preparation involved and considerable pressure on the school community. Once released into the public domain, an Ofsted report can potentially make or break a school’s reputation.
In April 2023, the vice-president of the National Association of Headteachers, Simon Kidwell, claimed that Ofsted was ‘not fit for purpose’. He is not alone in suggesting that inspections cause excessive stress to the school community, which can be detrimental both to staff welfare (especially amid a recruitment crisis) and to teaching and learning.
After claims that primary-school headteacher Ruth Perry tragically took her own life after she was told that her school would be given the lowest possible Ofsted rating, the inspectorate now faces more intense criticism, partly for the conduct of inspection weeks and partly for the perceived fairness of subsequent reports. In this context, Perry’s sister, Julia Waters, has called for schools to boycott Ofsted, refuse to cooperate with inspectors and remove all references to it from their websites until an independent review has been carried out.
Additionally, there are concerns that Ofsted’s four-label grading system – outstanding, good, requires improvement, inadequate – reduces the richness of educational outcomes to a reductive, box-ticking exercise. More recently, some school leaders have even instigated legal proceedings against Ofsted to challenge inspection feedback. But how else could schools be judged? Ofsted’s outgoing chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, defends the use of grades on the grounds that they are welcomed by parents who find them accessible.
Certainly, polls show that most parents (86 per cent) agree that it’s important for them to be informed about school inspections. But should parents also have a full breakdown of what exactly is being judged?
And what about complex issues such as pupil exclusions? Heads can receive a low grade for sending home too many badly behaved children. But they will also be judged adversely if the overall standard of discipline is low, which could well be the case if badly behaved children are kept in school. Of course, parents take safeguarding seriously. Yet 78 per cent of parents think that safeguarding should be inspected separately from educational standards.
And with so many aspects of the school curriculum now embroiled in contentious and political culture war disputes, around everything from decolonisation to gender identity, what exactly constitutes ‘outstanding’ in relation to sex and relationship education, or diversity and inclusion policies?
Is Ofsted needed and, if so, what should its remit and practices include? Is grading schools Ofsted-style beneficial or detrimental to teaching and learning?
SPEAKERSJason Ashleyheadteacher, Redbridge Community School
Louise Burtonhistory teacher
Dr Sean Langsenior lecturer in History, Anglia Ruskin University; author, First World War for Dummies and What History Do We Need?; fellow, Historical Association
Martin Robinsondirector, Trivium 21c Ltd. education consultancy; author, Trivium 21c, Curriculum Revolutions, Curriculum: Athena versus the machine and Trivium in Practice
CHAIRIan MitchellEnglish literature and psychology teacher; writer, Teachwire; member, AoI Education Forum

ChatGPT: cheating or a new tool for learning?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Generative AI has changed the game when it comes to cheating in schools and universities. Students can make ChatGPT or Bard generate entire essays and presentations, and existing plagiarism-checking software doesn’t stand a chance. From one perspective, students passing off AI-generated work as their own are being lazy and unscrupulous. From another, students taking advantage of AI are responding rationally to a culture of high-stakes credentialism and ‘teaching to the test’.
Some suggest that today’s AI demonstrates – once and for all – the redundancy of the knowledge and skills traditionally taught in schools and universities. We should instead be equipping youngsters for an AI-dominated world by showing them how to get the best out of emerging technologies. Others, including Ofqual’s chief regulator, argue that AI makes traditional cheat-proof methods such as paper-based exams more important than ever. Others still argue that the proliferation of cheating reveals inherent failures in the education system to inspire a respect for knowledge and learning in general.
In this rapidly evolving context, how should educational institutions respond to the challenges posed by AI? How do we handle cheating when it is impossible to detect? What is the role of knowledge and learning in a world dominated by technologies that seem to do the work for us? Can student disengagement be blamed on AI tools, or is there a deeper problem in education?
SPEAKERSDr Catherine BreslinAI scientist; AI consultant, Kingfisher Labs
Donald Clarklearning tech entrepreneur; investor; professor; author, Learning and the Metaverse; founder, Epic plc; CEO, WildFire
Omar Mohamedstudent; president of Speak Easy, Royal Holloway University
Gareth Sturdyphysics adviser, Up Learn; education and science writer
Poppy Woodpolitics and education correspondent,i newspaper
CHAIRHarley Richardsonchief product officer, OxEd and Assessment; organiser, AoI Education Forum; blogger, historyofeducation.net; author, The Liberating Power of Education

‘Speaking as a…’: the tyranny of ‘lived experience’

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In an era of identity politics, ‘lived experience’ is often invoked – and has huge moral value. It is regularly cited as more authentic or truthful than empirical data – and can be used to trump analysis. Its subjective relativism is seen as a death knell to claims of universal knowledge. This approach is also influencing law. Hate crime is now described as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic’.
Citing lived experience can add personal credibility to a viewpoint – it’s clear to most people that experience is important. Having people who know what something feels like, with first-hand knowledge of a situation, can help provide a more accurate and truthful response.
But a prioritisation of lived experience can also mean some arguments become incontestable – presenting a serious challenge to democratic debate. People can be silenced for having a view on critical race theory because they have no ‘lived experience’ of racism. Men are told to ‘shut up’ and listen when women discuss sexual harassment. Even asking for empirical evidence in arguments over identity can be interpreted as questioning lived experience, and seen as an ethical transgression and a personal slight.
Ironically, some lived experiences are more equal than others. For example, it is demanded that institutions and individuals prioritise trans people’s ‘lived experience’ when claiming others’ attitudes are transphobic. Yet when a University of Melbourne associate professor of philosophy, Holly Lawford-Smith, set up a website asking women to share their personal experiences of encountering biological males in women-only spaces, she was denounced as a partisan hate figure on her own campus. When ordinary people articulate their experience of, for example, their community’s concerns about migration or their antagonism to ULEZ, their ‘lived experience’ is used as evidence of misinformed ignorance – irrational and unreliable as opposed to data and academic research.
Behind the idea of lived experience is the notion that identity groups share similar experiences. This can turn nasty – a range of senior Conservative politicians from ethnic minority backgrounds have been treated as ‘superficially black’, ‘coconut’ and worse, with their personal histories deemed inauthentic because their experiences have not led them to adopting particular political views.
Can our own individual experiences tell us something about collective identity? Or do we risk pigeon-holing each other by assuming that one experience is representative of a whole? Shouldn’t we listen to each other’s personal accounts, in order to understand each other? Or has a reliance on lived experience above all else driven us further apart?
SPEAKERSBen Cobleyauthor, The Tribe: the liberal-left and the system of diversity; public speaker; former Labour Party activist
James Essesbarrister; social commentator; co-founder, Thoughtful Therapists
Esther Krakuecolumnist and broadcaster
Kunle Olulodedirector, Voice4Change England
CHAIRDr Alka Sehgal Cuthbertdirector, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth

Revitalising free speech on campus: Living Freedom and Speak Easy

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Many young people report they self-censor and fear ostracisation for deviating from orthodox opinions. On campus, student societies often encounter problems when wanting to discuss ‘controversial’ topics or invite diverse speakers. Given the new duty of free speech placed on universities in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, how can students use this to their advantage? Here we celebrate two initiatives that invite students themselves to champion free speech and take the lead in remaking the case for critical inquiry, free expression and open debate.
Speak Easy is a new platform for real debate and disagreement. Tired of debating societies and a lack of free speech on campuses letting you down? Feel like the topics and speakers you want to listen to don’t appear at your university? Finding it difficult to change the culture within student unions and societies on campus to stand up for open debate? Then look no further. Speak Easy is a movement fighting back against debating-society establishments by fostering a culture of diversity of opinion, casual debating and not shying away from the big topics.
Living Freedom is dedicated to renewing freedom through education and debate. Through ‘What can we learn from…?’, a series of salon-style events touring UK universities in autumn 2023, Living Freedom ensures new generations can face up to the challenge of understanding historic principles, present challenges and future oriented ideals as a means to renewing this core value of modern liberal societies.
Come along, find out more… and join us in creating a free speech renaissance.
SPEAKERSJack Barwellchairman, Speak Easy National Movement; president, Exeter University Speak Easy Society; founder and president, Bridge the Gap;
Felice Basbøllproject assistant, Ideas Matter; student, Trinity College Dublin
Emma Cabezaoliasstudent, Durham University; treasurer, Speak Easy national committee;
Ella Nixoncurator; writer; PhD student, Northumbria University; fellow, Common Sense Caledonia; 2023 fellow, Roger Scruton
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question