Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

From debanking to Bud Light: the rights and wrongs of ESG

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In July, NatWest’s CEO Alison Rose became the latest casualty of the turn to environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) in big business. Rose resigned after the furore over the closure of Nigel Farage’s Coutts account, in part because his political views did not ‘align’ with the company’s values. From Nike annoying women by embracing trans ‘influencer’ Dylan Mulvaney to Gillette annoying men by piggy-backing on the #MeToo movement, there have been numerous high-profile corporate mis-steps in the name of projecting a ‘progressive’ image.
The traditional image of a big business is one of an organisation single-mindedly focused on generating profits for shareholders. But in recent years, there has been a drive to introduce other aims into corporate practice and mission statements, from tackling climate change to promoting ethnic and gender diversity. Given the strong position of big corporations in society, changing the way they conduct business could be a powerful force for good, in the eyes of many.
But there have been concerns that the promotion of such values could be at odds with the views of customers. In April, the backlash against Bud Light’s use of Mulvaney in their advertising led to a boycott of Budweiser products and a decline in the company’s share price. Alissa Heinerscheid, Anheuser-Busch’s vice-president for marketing, had earlier declared that the brand needed to increase its ‘inclusivity’, but she was later reported to have been fired by the company.
Moreover, the rise of debanking and the withdrawal of online payments services is a serious threat to the ability of individuals and organisations to operate in modern society. In July, the Guardian reported that a thousand accounts per day are being closed. While most people would accept that banks have the right to reject customers on commercial grounds, the idea that expressing the ‘wrong’ ideas could make it impossible to send and receive payments is worrying. Moreover, banks are seemingly under no obligation to explain why accounts are being closed.
What is the best role for big firms in improving society? Should they focus solely on producing the best products and services at the keenest prices? Or given their influence, should they be promoting social change, too? Is the turn to ESG, as many claim, merely ‘wokewashing’ or have top executives really bought into pursuing these aims? Is ESG really progressive or does the debanking trends point to illiberal outcomes?
SPEAKERSJoan Mulvennasemi-retired garden designer; founding member, Politics In Pubs
Professor David Patonprofessor of Industrial Economics, Nottingham University Business School
Hilary Salt FIA, FPMI, FRSAactuary; founder, First Actuarial
Barry Wallcourse director, Edileaditandliveit.co.uk
CHAIRSam ParkerEuropean financial regulation specialist; former parliamentary assistant, European Parliament and House of Lords

Boxing: Don't Count it Out

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Open debate has been suffocated by today’s censorious climate and there is little cultural support for freedom as a foundational value. What we need is rowdy, good-natured disagreement and people prepared to experiment with what freedom might mean today. Faced with this challenge, the Academy of Ideas decided to launch Letters on Liberty – a radical public pamphleteering campaign aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom in the twenty-first century.
In his Letter – Boxing: don’t count it out – writer and boxing enthusiast Chris Akers argues that boxing, more than any sport, has a unique way of tapping into the consciousness of the poor, the disgruntled and the forgotten. For all its flaws, he writes, boxing has been the vehicle by which people in poverty have escaped to better surroundings. From Muhammad Ali to Lovemore N’dou, boxing’s greats have often used the sport to highlight political injustices and social issues.
Join Chris and respondents to look at boxing’s contemporary challenges – with new scientific research around head injuries and ‘punch drunk’ fighters calling for greater safety measures in the ring. From rules on gloves to ever-decreasing limits on bouts, should boxing modernise to protect its heroes? Or will we lose the glory of the knockout by introducing more red tape? Does boxing ‘save lives’ – teaching ex-offenders and troubled teens discipline and strength? Or is the commercialisation of violence producing bad role models for young people? And if grown men and women want to go toe-to-toe, who are we to stop them?
SPEAKERSChris Akerssports writer; ghost writer, King of the Journeymen: the life of Peter Buckley; podcaster, The 286 Project
Rob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum
Dr Vanessa Pupavactranslator; senior lecturer, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham; author, Translation as Liberation
CHAIRGeoff Kidderdirector, membership and events, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Book Club

Battle for the classroom: education or indoctrination?

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
School has a key role in encouraging pupils to become engaged, independent thinkers. But this task has become highly contentious as newspapers reflect many parents’ concerns that classrooms are becoming as concerned with political activism as passing on ‘the best which has been thought and said’.
In the Policy Exchange research report The Politics of the Culture Wars in Contemporary Britain, academic Eric Kaufmann suggests that activist teaching is now widespread in the UK and beginning to have an impact on the views of young people. Six out of 10 school leavers say they were either taught about ideas associated with critical race theory – such as white privilege, systemic racism and unconscious bias – or they heard about them from an adult at their school. Sixty-five per cent say they either encountered the concept of patriarchy or the idea that there are multiple genders from adults at school. What’s more, the government has become embroiled in widespread concerns that parents are being sidelined by schools when it comes to gender transitioning that often takes place with the encouragement of schools but without parents’ consent or even knowledge.
However, some argue this narrative of politicised teaching is a caricature, itself a political act of dragging schools into the Culture Wars. Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the National Education Union (NEU), warns that politicians’ hype about impartiality could induce such uncertainty and caution in schools about ‘political issues’ that students will be ‘denied the opportunity to engage with the most challenging issues of our time’, including racism and climate change. Furthermore, political matters – such as teaching ‘British values’ – have always informed school curricula.
Do accusations of indoctrination simply reflect political disagreement with a new ‘woke’ emphasis? Should schools go beyond narrow academic goals and teach our children how to combat racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, poverty and promote environmentalism? Should we accept social justice in schools as a natural reflection of discussions in wider society, or is it time to insist on a clear distinction between the political and educational domains? Can contested political ideas be dealt with in classrooms by allowing a range of views to be discussed or should schools steer clear of tackling political controversies altogether? Have education and indoctrination become blurred?
SPEAKERSPenny Lewislecturer, University of Dundee; author, Architecture and Collective Life
Agnes Snowart foundation student, Manchester Metropolitan University
Ruth Warehamlecturer in Philosophy of Education, University of Birmingham; education policy researcher, Humanists UK
Clive Wrightheadteacher, St Martin's Catholic Academy
CHAIRDr Ruth Mieschbuehlersenior lecturer in education studies, Institute of Education, University of Derby; author, The Racialisation of Campus Relations

Are the Culture Wars a distraction?

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The reaction in the UK to the Israel-Hamas conflict is just the latest expression of culture-war divisions. The gap between those defending Israel’s right to defend itself and those demanding a ceasefire or even victory for Hamas seems insurmountable, while the role of major institutions, from the police to the BBC, is constantly questioned.
Yet compared with issues like the cost-of-living crisis, climate change or the war in Ukraine and the return of global conflict to Europe, many view the culture war as a peripheral issue. At a time when developments such as AI threaten mankind’s progress and, in the minds of some, could lead to our extinction, one commentator argues: ‘The culture wars may be seen not as genuine debates but as a form of Freudian displacement. The woke and anti-woke need each other to engage in piffling spats as a diversion from realities they both find too psychologically threatening to confront.’
Do they have a point? Are we effectively fiddling while Rome burns? Whether it’s fights over vegan sausage rolls or galleries flying rainbow flags, culture-war debates certainly generate a lot of heat. But when economic realities mean, for example, that hospitals are under strain and many cannot access vital health treatment, not surprisingly identitarian wars over language codes can be viewed as an artificial attempt to distract us from the problems that really matter – at a time when few politicians seem capable of offering genuine solutions.
For others, the UK culture wars are an American import – an alt-right, Christian fundamentalist assault on stability and the body politic. Given that even the most strident culture warriors on the conservative side are at pains to insist they are not racist, sexist or transphobic, why get so agitated about different degrees of enthusiasm for a worldview we all basically share? Or is there more to it than is admitted?
While today’s cultural divides may not straightforwardly map onto historic Left-Right splits, some say that, in essence, they do reflect significant contemporary class and political divides. Given that how we see the world, and what we value and want out of life, is mediated through culture, today’s battles around historic figures’ links to slavery, or institutions ‘virtue signalling’ over toilets and pronouns can have the capacity to fundamentally influence how we understand ourselves and negotiate change.
If no one, from the National Trust to the British Library, will uphold the traditional values and the legacy of the past, will we lose our sense of who we are and where we’ve come from? Are the culture wars simply a Twitter sideshow to the more serious concerns of everyday life? Or is the way we relate to each other, and to our shared values, fundamental to how we plan for a future together? Given that dissent from so-called ‘woke’ ideas – whether on race, gender or culture itself – has become impossible without being demonised as stirring up toxic, divisive and dangerous trends, is there any choice but to engage in the culture wars? Will it have to be reckoned with if we are to have a serious discussion about anything else? And if, as some argue, today’s culture war is a continuation of the age-old conflict between liberty and authoritarianism, does the claim that the culture war is a ‘distraction’ not in itself become a distraction from the issues that matter?
SPEAKERSDr Remi Adekoyalecturer of politics, University of York; author It’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealth and Biracial Britain
Simon Calvertdeputy director (Public Affairs), The Christian Institute
Dr Cheryl Hudsonlecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: race, culture and the remaking of American identity
Stephen Knightreporter and podcaster; host, The Knight Tube
Bruno WaterfieldBrussels correspondent, The Times
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

A nation of shoplifters? Britain's anti-social society

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Over a million incidents of anti-social behaviour were recorded last year. The problem has been making headlines, from the government’s ban on the ‘laughing gas’ canisters that litter parks to the home-invasion trend that saw the infamous Mizzy walking into random houses with his fellow TikTokers. But how big a problem is it? Is anti-social behaviour a perennial problem caused by young people hanging about on the streets, or is there something else going on?
According to research, 43 per cent of victims of anti-social behaviour suffer mental-health impacts, while vandalism and disorder blight many areas. As for the perpetrators, the shadow justice secretary, Steve Reed, has spoken of ‘tackling the effects of the trauma that leads them to offend’. But is this therapeutic approach to young people and to those on the receiving end of anti-social behaviour just as disempowering as the punitive approach also advocated by both main parties?
The government’s Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan promises to treat it ‘with the urgency it deserves’ and to take a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach. The campaign group Manifesto Club, however, describes it as a ‘significant increase in police and local authority powers to direct individual behaviour, ban public activities, and issue on-the-spot penalties’.
Shoplifting seems to be on the rise – with John Lewis and other corporations announcing profit losses linked to ‘steal-to-order’ shoplifters. In big supermarkets, many items such as baby formula or cheese are kept behind the counter or are security tagged. For some, the kinds of products being targeted signifies that the increase in criminality is linked to the cost-of-living crisis. But others argue that the inability of the police to respond to shoplifting calls means that thieves know they can operate with impunity. Earlier this year, Derbyshire’s police and crime commissioner announced her Action Against Anti-Social Behaviour Plan, with £4.4million from the Home Office to help with ‘hot spot’ policing, as well as ‘further resources to the CCTV upgrades, youth diversionary projects, and the provision of sports activities’. While some argue that anti-social behaviour is the devil making work for idle hands, others are sceptical about solving the crisis with youth clubs.
Is the political and media response excessive or are we too easily resigned to youthful misbehaviour, petty crime and incivility? Is it just the young ones we have to worry about? From dangerous dogs to shoplifting-to-order, age no longer seems to be the defining factor in many instances of anti-social behaviour. Has the interference of mobile phones in public life – creating a bystander society keen to film but not to act – meant that social shaming no longer plays a role in combatting anti-social behaviour? Do we have a role to play in ‘policing’ our communities ourselves or are we too scared, or disinclined, to intervene?
SPEAKERSTom Andrewspolice historian; lecturer in policing, University of Derby; former police sergeant; author, The Sharpe End: murder, violence and knife crime on Nottingham’s thin blue line
Lisa McKenzieworking-class academic; author, Getting By: estates class and culture in austerity Britain and Working Class Lockdown Diaries
Dr Elizabeth Peatfieldsenior lecturer in Criminal Justice, Liverpool John Moores University; presiding justice, Merseyside Criminal Bench
Jane Sandemanchief operating officer, The Passage; convenor, AoI Parents Forum; contributor, Standing up to Supernanny
CHAIRPaul Thomascivil servant; co-founder, The Leeds Salon

Save our cities

Battle of Ideas festival 2023 satellite event on Thursday 28 September at BDP, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In future, a city’s greatness won’t be measured in how many high-rises it has, but how appealing, efficient and vibrant the surroundings are.
In this special event, the renowned urbanist and demographer Professor Joel Kotkin of Chapman University, California presents some of his thoughts and concerns on the future of our urban centres post-Covid, post-recession. Focusing on the American experience, but also using examples from Europe and the Far East, he explores whether cities can survive. As their business model is killed off, as city councils face bankruptcy, as online becomes the go-to commercial experience, as rents become extortionate, as growth, manufacturing, commerce and consumerism become problematic concepts, are we witnessing the end of the Metropolitan Age? If cities survive this onslaught, what will be their purpose?
Kotkin, the Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures and R. Hobbs Professor in Urban Studies, has written widely on economic, political and social trends. His books include The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, which explores how the US might evolve in the next four decades. Here he will present his ideas on the need to rethink what cities are for. Predominantly focusing on the problems in US city as forerunners of our own, he examines the causes and consequences. A panel of respondents comment on and question the premise.
SPEAKERSKathryn Firthdirector, Integrated City Planning, Arup; London Mayor Design Advocate; Design Critic in Urban Planning and Design, Harvard University Graduate School of Design
Joel KotkinR.C. Hobbs Professor of Urban Studies, Chapman University, California; executive director, Center for Opportunity Urbanism
Vicky Richardsonarchitectural writer; curator, Light Lines: the architectural photographs of Hélène Binet; former director of architecture, design and fashion, British Council
David Rudlinurban design director, BDP; former chair, Academy of Urbanism; former director, URBED
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; convenor, Critical Subjects Architecture School

Can we agree to disagree?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Today’s cultural climate means identity issues such as sex and gender, race and ethnicity, are especially toxic topics. Is it possible to disagree about these issues civilly without opposing views reduced to ad hominem attacks or labelling people as bigots?
In the Channel 4 documentary Gender Wars, many viewers were surprised to see (some inspired; some sceptical) that iconic radical feminist and gay-rights activist Linda Bellos is firm friends with Katy Jon Went, a prominent transgender public figure. Despite holding seemingly incompatible opinions about whether trans women and trans men should be considered women and men, they claim that they both engage with each other to try and understand each other’s viewpoints. And beyond politics, the two regularly put their differences aside and socialise as neighbours.
Linda and Katy discuss how they avoid political differences becoming personal, whether identity issues are too often viewed as binary, and the one issue they both agree on – that a ‘no debate’ approach helps no one.
SPEAKERSLinda Bellos OBEequality, radical feminist and gay rights activist; diversity and human rights practitioner
Katy Jon Wentdiversity and inclusion facilitator and educator, Human Library, Pick My Brain, GenderAgenda, Fifty Shades of Gender
CHAIRDr Shirley Lawesresearcher; consultant and university teacher, specialising in teacher education and modern foreign languages; Chevalier dans l'ordre des Palmes Académiques awarded

Letters on Liberty: Freedom - Up in Smoke?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Open debate has been suffocated by today’s censorious climate and there is little cultural support for freedom as a foundational value. What we need is rowdy, good-natured disagreement and people prepared to experiment with what freedom might mean today. Faced with this challenge, the Academy of Ideas decided to launch Letters on Liberty – a radical public pamphleteering campaign aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom in the twenty-first century.
In his Letter – Freedom: up in smoke? – writer and director of smokers’ rights group FOREST Simon Clark looks at the radical history of lighting up. From David Hockney to Syrian women smoking cigarettes in defiance of religious extremism, smoking can be an expression of personal and political freedom. Unfortunately, Simon writes, such freedoms are increasingly undermined by public-health measures, designed to control and regulate our behaviour beyond what he says ought to be reasonable.
Join Simon and respondents to examine the past, present and future of smoking – and whether or not the freedom to smoke is worth defending. Despite knowing the consequences of cigarettes – addiction, poor health and even death – why do so many still enjoy it? Does the glamorisation of smoking in the arts from James Dean to Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s Fleabag pose a problem for public health? Or should we accept that smoking – like drinking or sky-diving – is a risk we should be allowed to take?
SPEAKERSDr Piers Bennphilosopher, author and lecturer
Simon Clarkdirector, FOREST; author, Hands Off Our Packs: diary of a political campaign and Freedom: Up in Smoke?
Rick Moorebusiness owner, InControl; electronic engineer; deputy chair political, Blackburn Conservative Association
CHAIRCeri Dingledirector, WORLDwrite and WORLDbytes

Letters on Liberty: In Defence of Drag

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Open debate has been suffocated by today’s censorious climate and there is little cultural support for freedom as a foundational value. What we need is rowdy, good-natured disagreement and people prepared to experiment with what freedom might mean today. Faced with this challenge, the Academy of Ideas decided to launch Letters on Liberty – a radical public pamphleteering campaign aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom in the twenty-first century.
In her Letter – In defence of drag – cabaret tour-de-force and drag queen Vanity von Glow explores the beauty and power of the drag performance. The true sorcery of drag is the magical way a drag queen can get away with murder on stage, she argues. As well as the pomp and performance of the show, the power of drag has far more to do with who the artists are, and what they say. By showing people that supposed identities, social structures, norms, attire and hierarchies can be shuffled around, Vanity argues, drag queens put people in touch with braver, more creative versions of themselves.
Join Vanity and respondents to delve into the world of drag. Have recent controversies over drag-queen story-hour had a chilling effect on drag artists in pubs, clubs and other adult venues? How do recent discussions about the importance of identity marry with drag – an art form that has long played with the fluidity of gender? What can infamous drag queens – from Ru Paul to the late Lily Savage – tell us about gay history and working-class culture? And with increasing pressure on performers to be role models, should drag resist becoming a moral examplar and stick to its ability to stun and amaze, titillate and inspire?
SPEAKERSCaroline Ffiskeco-founder and spokesperson, Conservatives for Women
Manick Govindaguest co-curator, Culture Tensions, Ujazdowski Castle Centre for Contemporary Art, Warsaw, Poland
Dr Don Milliganwriter and social commentator; author, The Embrace of Capital
Vanity von Glowinternationally ignored superstar; cabaret performer; host, The Vanity Project; host, Drag Queen Wine Tasting and Drag Queen Power Ballads
Cressida Wettoncomedian; panellist, Headliners, GB News
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

Israel: Anti-Semitism today

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
It wasn’t so long ago that the slaughter of over 1,300 Jews – by a Hamas assault on southern Israel – would have been unthinkable. If that’s not bad enough, a significant number of individuals worldwide seem to be justifying Hamas’s attacks. These are, in the words of one commentator, regarded as ‘excusable pogroms’. The once popular cry of ‘never again’ is sounding increasingly hollow.
Hamas, the Islamist terrorist group based in Gaza, has never made its intention to slaughter Jews secret. On the contrary, it is openly stated in its 1988 charter. Yet all too many in the West, particularly among the left and anti-Israel activists, seem blind to this fact. Either they do not care or they find it acceptable.
Meanwhile, members of the Jewish community live in fear of attacks. Some Jewish schools have decided to close temporarily or have advised pupils not to wear blazers with school badges while travelling to and from school.
What is to be made of the return of what some call the ‘oldest hatred’? Anti-Semitism seemed to be a marginal force after the horrors of the Second World War. Now, at least in some sections of society, it seems to be an acceptable form of ‘progressive’ criticism of Israel as a uniquely evil apartheid state, colonialist, imperialist and racist. And when some Muslims living in the West express such views, the identitarian left looks the other way. In fact, many on the left nowadays increasingly present Jews as bastions of white privilege, only prosperous by exploitation. Does this outlook rehabilitate old notions of Jewish conspiratorial power?
How can we explain the open expression of anti-Semitism on the streets of London and other Western countries? Should the UK emulate France’s ban of pro-Palestine demos or do such illiberal responses fuel anti-Israel, indeed anti-Jewish sentiment? How do those with genuine criticisms of Israel express their qualms at present or is it unthinkable in the wake of Hamas butchery – an issue for another day? How could anti-Semitism, an ideology that appeared to have been marginalised, come to reassert itself? And why is it those who consider themselves the most enlightened who are often the worst culprits?
SPEAKERSDaniel Ben-Amijournalist; creator, Radicalism of Fools; author, Ferraris for All: in defence of economic progress and Cowardly Capitalism
Professor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation
Josh Howiecomedian; writer and star, Josh Howie’s Losing It, BBC Radio 4; actor, Hapless; television critic, Jewish Chronicle
Charlie Petersreporter and presenter, GB News
CHAIRJean Smithmember, Tackling Antisemitism; co-founder and director, NY Salon

Letters on Liberty: Against Reparations

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Open debate has been suffocated by today’s censorious climate and there is little cultural support for freedom as a foundational value. What we need is rowdy, good-natured disagreement and people prepared to experiment with what freedom might mean today. Faced with this challenge, the Academy of Ideas decided to launch Letters on Liberty – a radical public pamphleteering campaign aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom in the 21st century.
In his Letter – Against Reparations – historian and author James Heartfield argues that reparations should not be used as an easy way to buy apologies for past wrongdoings. In many instances, he writes, reparations have worked in favour of the colonisers, rather than the colonised. By looking through the history of reparations, including the Atlantic Slave Trade, James argues that these often represent the interests of the compensating power, not the compensated. No act of reparation will ever satisfy the disappointment that its champions feel, he argues, because the problem they are trying to deal with is their lack of authority in the present, not the injuries done to their forbears in the past.
Join James and respondents to ask whether reparations are necessary when it comes to dealing with past wrongs. Do critics of reparations fail to take seriously the legacy of the slave trade, and the link between the oppression of black people in centuries gone by and the discrimination suffered by some today? Does accepting reparations make the recipient a ‘prisoner of history’, as Frantz Fanon put it? Are reparations a vital leveller? Or just another white saviour project?
SPEAKERSDr Remi Adekoyalecturer of politics, University of York; author It’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealth and Biracial Britain
Dr Pauline Hadawayresearcher; writer; co-founder, The Liverpool Salon; author, Escaping the Panopticon
Rushabh HariaLondon-based policy and project professional; Living Freedom alumnus
James Heartfieldlecturer and author
CHAIRProfessor 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

Letters on Liberty: Boxing - Don't count it out

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Open debate has been suffocated by today’s censorious climate and there is little cultural support for freedom as a foundational value. What we need is rowdy, good-natured disagreement and people prepared to experiment with what freedom might mean today. Faced with this challenge, the Academy of Ideas decided to launch Letters on Liberty – a radical public pamphleteering campaign aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom in the twenty-first century.
In his Letter – Boxing: don’t count it out – writer and boxing enthusiast Chris Akers argues that boxing, more than any sport, has a unique way of tapping into the consciousness of the poor, the disgruntled and the forgotten. For all its flaws, he writes, boxing has been the vehicle by which people in poverty have escaped to better surroundings. From Muhammad Ali to Lovemore N’dou, boxing’s greats have often used the sport to highlight political injustices and social issues.
Join Chris and respondents to look at boxing’s contemporary challenges – with new scientific research around head injuries and ‘punch drunk’ fighters calling for greater safety measures in the ring. From rules on gloves to ever-decreasing limits on bouts, should boxing modernise to protect its heroes? Or will we lose the glory of the knockout by introducing more red tape? Does boxing ‘save lives’ – teaching ex-offenders and troubled teens discipline and strength? Or is the commercialisation of violence producing bad role models for young people? And if grown men and women want to go toe-to-toe, who are we to stop them?
SPEAKERSChris Akerssports writer; ghost writer, King of the Journeymen: the life of Peter Buckley; podcaster, The 286 Project
Max Barragan Segreregional club support officer, England Boxing
Luke Gittoscriminal lawyer; author, Human Rights – Illusory Freedom; director, Freedom Law Clinic
CHAIRGeoff Kidderdirector, membership and events, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Book Club

Politicisation of therapy

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The world of psychotherapy has been, traditionally, a broad church of theories and practices, made possible by the therapeutic principles of empathy, active listening and unconditional positive regard for the other. Historically, therapists have been taught to ‘bracket’ their own personal opinions when it comes to the client sitting opposite to them in the therapy room. However, there are growing concerns that psychotherapy is being used as a vehicle to push social-justice theory on already vulnerable individuals, with practitioners viewing themselves first and foremost as activists.
For example, therapists are being disciplined by regulatory bodies or expelled from training courses for daring to suggest that men cannot become women. Foundational theories of psychotherapy are being disregarded on the basis that they were formulated by a bunch of ‘old, white men’. Clients are being told by their therapists that they are inherently ‘privileged’ based on immutable characteristics, essentially ceasing to exist as a unique individual. Therapists, in the name of ideology, have been accused of offering bad advice – with serious long-term consequences – to children struggling with gender dysphoria.
When therapists view their role as primarily one of social activism and moral re-education, what risk does this pose to the profession as a whole, and the clients they purport to serve?
SPEAKERSDr Jennifer Cunninghamretired community paediatrician
James Essesbarrister; social commentator; co-founder, Thoughtful Therapists
Amy Gallagherpsychiatric nurse and psychotherapist
Dr Carole Sherwoodclinical psychologist; co-director, Critical Therapy Antidote; co-author Cynical Therapies and The Politicisation of Clinical Psychology Training Courses in the UK
CHAIRJason Crowleyintegrative therapist

The politics of neurodiversity: fashion or affliction?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Neurodiversity is increasingly in the public consciousness. Environmental activists and TV presenters have talked about their experiences of autism and footballers describe their difficulties of living with ADHD. According to some estimates, as many as 20 per cent of the global population are neurodivergent, spanning everything from severe autism to dyslexia.
Some argue that increased visibility and destigmatisation of such conditions are a welcome development, both for those who can understand themselves better through a diagnosis and for societal acceptance of natural human difference. Others question the benefits of these developments, arguing that the sharp rise in diagnosis is effectively making such diagnoses meaningless. In turn, this takes away resources and treatment from those for whom their condition is debilitating, in favour of those who may in the past have been described as shy, socially awkward or a bit quirky.
Furthermore, while the prevalence of ADHD or autism obviously does not discriminate along political lines, people on the progressive left seem to be much more likely to talk about – if not proudly proclaim – their diagnoses. As with gender and race, the boundaries of neurodiversity are difficult to police and open to appropriation.
How should neurodiversity be diagnosed and treated in society? Are we over-diagnosing neurodiversity and pathologising normal behaviour, or is it good that we are more aware of these conditions? Can neurodiversity and the way we handle it be saved from becoming a key faultline in the culture wars?
SPEAKERSFelice Basbøllproject assistant, Ideas Matter; student, Trinity College Dublin
Dr Ken McLaughlinformer social worker; academic; author, Surviving Identity: Vulnerability and the psychology of recognition and Stigma, and its discontents
Stella O'Malleypsychotherapist; director, Genspect; author, What Your Teen is Trying to Tell You
David Swifthistorian; author, The Identity Myth and A Left for Itself
CHAIRDr Fiona McEwensurvey and interventions director, King’s College London

Has the law become partisan?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The campaigning barrister Jolyon Maugham KC recently declared his support for ‘a beautiful idea’: that lawyers should refuse to prosecute climate protesters or to act for the fossil fuel industry. This, he declared in a Guardian article, is because the law is sometimes wrong and ugly.
Maugham’s stance was supported by over 100 lawyers who signed-up to a Declaration of Conscience.  But it was also criticised by those who saw it as a form of virtue signalling that challenged the objectivity of law and its ability to serve justice.  After all, if lawyers could champion their right to snub those accused of ‘ecocide’ then this would surely be a principle that would impede the ability of those accused of less serious harms to get the lawyers their cases deserved.
Law’s practitioners have traditionally been valued and seen as ‘learned’ because of the service they provide in upholding the rule of law.  The ‘beautiful idea’ that still energises many lawyers is their desire to master their craft with knowledge, wisdom and persuasive arguments.
On the other hand, why shouldn’t lawyers decide which clients to act for? For decades, left-wing lawyers have often chosen to defend, rather than prosecute, and to act for tenants, employees and migrants rather than for landlords, employers and the Home Office. With plenty of other lawyers prepared to act for the other side, this hasn’t undermined the rule of law.
Should lawyers be dispassionate or should they be valued for their political beliefs? Could it be true that the passionate lawyer makes the better lawyer?
SPEAKERSJon Holbrookbarrister; writer, spiked, Critic, Conservative Woman
Laurie Laybournresearcher; writer; associate fellow, Institute for Public Policy Research; co-author, Planet on Fire: A manifesto for the age of environmental breakdown
Anna Loutfiequality and human rights barrister; consultant, The Bad Law Project
Lord Ken Macdonald KCbarrister, Matrix Chambers; crossbench peer
CHAIRLuke Gittoscriminal lawyer; author, Human Rights – Illusory Freedom; director, Freedom Law Clinic