Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

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

Battle of Ideas festival 2023: welcome address

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The eighteenth annual Battle of Ideas festival opened with a Welcome Address.
SPEAKERSBen Deloentrepreneur, mathematician and philanthropist
Claire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Andrew Tate and the Lost Boys

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From bad influences to rebels without a cause, society has always worried about young men. But the recent popularity of the influencer and self-titled ‘king of toxic masculinity’, Andrew Tate, among young men – and even pre-teen boys – has left schools and parents in a panic. Such is the fear of Tate’s influence that headteachers have reached out to the Department for Education for guidance on how to talk to their lads about his misogynistic views on women.
But the Tate phenomenon is complicated: many young men claim to take his messages about women with a pinch of salt, instead finding meaning in his proselytising about ambition, self-sufficiency and becoming ‘a man’. In fact, almost everyone agrees that we need to talk about men – from campaigns to improve their mental health to authors like Caitlin Moran releasing books called What About Men? The question is, why do we seem to be getting it so wrong?
Some argue that contemporary feminist discussions about young women, from ‘He for She’ campaigns to the fallout from the #MeToo movement, often seem to put boys down in order to raise girls up. Others argue that the contemporary condemnation of ‘toxic masculinity’ has eliminated any discussion about what a ‘positive’ masculinity might look like, leaving boys to turn to online figures to find out how to grow up.
Has our nervousness about masculinity left us unable to talk to boys about what it means to be a man? Does the popularity of Tate and other influencers prove that sexism is still a problem, or should we be more concerned that large numbers of boys are turning to strangers online for life guidance? Are we dealing with a generation of lost boys, or is this crisis in manhood simply a twenty-first century version of the problem epitomised by The Wild One’s Johnny Strabler?
SPEAKERSNick Dixoncomedian; presenter, GB News; host, The Current Thing; host, The Weekly Sceptic
Dr Ashley Frawleysociologist; author, Significant Emotions and Semiotics of Happiness
Matilda Goslingsocial researcher; author, Evidence-Based Parenting and Teenagers – The Evidence Base (forthcoming)
Dennis Kavanaghdirector, Gay Men’s Network
CHAIRToby Marshallfilm studies teacher; member, AoI Education Forum

Marking time: how should lecturers judge students?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
If once university and college lecturers were trusted to use their critical faculties, judgement and erudition to grade students, today they are regularly issued with template marking schemes to grade their students’ academic work. Indeed, in some educational settings, algorithmic assessments are seen as the most reliable measure of worth. It is argued that lecturers can’t be trusted to be impartial; that subjective and unconscious bias could skew judgements and marks.
Meanwhile, students are told that they need protection from frank but harsh critiques, whether in crits, tutorials or coursework marking. Indeed, the idea of discrimination now seems to assume only negative connotations, with educators being discouraged from using the concrete judgement of their red pen to determine right from wrong. Surely objective, criteria-based assessment is fairer than relying on one grouchy don’s views – or another woke lecturer’s hostility to ‘unfashionable’ political outlooks?
For some, this demonisation of judgement has undermined confidence in the idea of personal and professional discrimination. For others, a move away from old-fashioned judgment and criticism shows a new sensitivity to students, and a self-awareness of one’s own biases. But is this a demeaning view of thin-skinned students unable to cope with feedback? Some argue such changes are doing students a disservice as their work is, in effect, managed by administrators and pre-approved metrics that perpetuate the idea of ‘teaching to test’. What if a student considers an academic’s judgement as biased, or even bullying? Some institutions have predicted such complaints and have set up processes for student appeals – even litigation. Are academics right to be wary of students; to protect themselves from accusations? Or does that normalise suspicion of others’ motives and self-doubt about one’s own?
What is wrong with creating a better model of evidence-based objective assessment? Can the art of criticism ever be a constructive process? Or is it inherently subjective, and open to abuse?
SPEAKERSMatilda MartinEnglish student, University of Oxford
Dr Vanessa Pupavactranslator; senior lecturer, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham; author, Translation as Liberation
David Swifthistorian; author, The Identity Myth and A Left for Itself
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; convenor, Critical Subjects Architecture School

Putting the past on trial: burning dead witches?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2013 on Sunday 20 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Denouncing racism in football, Prime Minister David Cameron recently declared, ‘we will not let recent events drag us back to the bad old days of the past,’ exemplifying a new trend to look back at the past from a position of moral superiority. Past decades are routinely disparaged today as a toxic legacy, particularly in the discussion about revelations of child abuse in the 1960s and 70s, but also in debates about ‘old-fashioned’ patriotism, traditional religion and ‘dead, white European males’ being taught in school curriculum, not to mention football hooliganism.
Far from celebrating the achievements of the past, the cultural script of the 21st century seems ever-hostile to the practices and values of yesteryear. When it comes to parenting, for example, the experience and insights of previous generations are castigated as dangerously old-fashioned prejudices, far too out-dated for our progressive, enlightened times. And in the debate about Baby-Boomers betraying today’s ‘jilted generation’, the older generations are admonished for the allegedly hedonistic, selfish and unsustainable lifestyles of their youth. Geoffrey Wheatcroft declares, ‘If there is any hope at all, it must be that our crappy generation can slink away in shame, and let a younger generation see if they can manage things better’.
Against this, Irish writer John Waters has warned against a dangerous condescension to the past and what he characterises as an ‘unlimited appetite for past obscenities’. Certainly we seem to have a morose fascination with excavating yesterday’s culture for secret scandals and hidden abuse. In the aftermath of the Savile scandal and amid Operation Yewtree, the police are openly encouraging people to examine their past for any possible abusive behaviour. For critics, this means inviting individuals to make sense of their current problems by seeing them as part of the damage inflicted by past wrongs. Should we accept the implication that their lives today were scripted by past childhood traumas? And are we being encouraged to reinterpret past experiences through the prism of present day preoccupations, obscuring our understanding of the past in its own terms? Why are we so keen to turn backwards and put the past on trial today, rather than concentrating on an optimistic embrace of the future? And was the past so bad anyway?
SPEAKERSJennie Bristowsenior lecturer in sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University; author, The Sociology of Generations: New directions and challenges and Baby Boomers and Generational Conflict; co-author, Parenting Culture Studies
Allan Massieauthor, nearly 30 books, including 20 historical novels, including A Question of Loyalties and Dark Summer in Bordeaux; columnist, Spectator
John WatersIrish newspaper columnist; author, Jiving at the Crossroads and Was It For This? Why Ireland Lost the Plot
Professor Sir Simon Wesselypresident of the Royal College of Psychiatrists; head of the Department of Psychological Medicine at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Soul on the slab: is there no limit to what neuroscience can do?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2013 on Sunday 20 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Neuroscience provides previously unimagined access to the inner workings of the brain. For enthusiasts, it could be the scientific holy grail, unravelling the mechanics of consciousness and uncovering the biological basis of the human character. Certainly, astonishing claims are made for new techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Every new advance in brain scanning technology leads to greater claims for the power of science. Scanned subjects’ response to different stimuli, when regions of the brain ‘light up’, are said to correlate with emotions, intentions, and feelings. Might an ability to visualise the mind within the brain provide a window into our innermost thoughts, reveal the sources of our deepest desires?
Despite the tremendous potential of breakthroughs in neuroscience, there is now increasing disquiet at the alleged exaggerations made in its name. Critics such as Thomas Nagel, Sally Satel and Raymond Tallis argue the overzealous application of brain science undermines notions of free will and responsibility, reducing all human behaviour to crude determinism. Others fear the rise and rise of neuroscience is side-lining centuries of insights into the human condition provided by the humanities, philosophy, psychology, politics, even religion. But such concerns are often dismissed as outdated and ill-informed, and even heretical when voiced by scientists themselves. So neuroscience’s colonisation of all aspects of life looks unstoppable, spawning a range of new disciplines such as neurolinguistics, neurogenetics, neuroeconomics, as well as educational, behavioural, cognitive and evolutionary neuroscience. Meanwhile, the supposed unlocking of the secrets of the human mind has attracted fashionable enthusiasm far beyond the world of science: policy makers, marketeers, pollsters, artists, lawyers now see neuroscience as the key to unlocking everything from why consumers make certain choices to why people vote left or right, from why we listen to music to why some of us commit crimes.
Has the explanatory power of neuroscience been overestimated or is it the key to reading our minds? Are those calling for a radical neuro-transformation of criminal responsibility, education, public health, social policy too credulous about what some term ‘neurobollocks’? Or is scepticism about neuroscience driven by a stubborn refusal to accept that we are less autonomous than we think? Should we anyway be seeking to keep what goes on in our brains out of public policy?
SPEAKERSDr Julian Bagginifounding editor, the Philosophers' Magazine; author, Freedom Regained: the possibility of free will and The Edge of Reason: A Rational Skeptic in an Irrational World
Professor Bill Durodiéhead of department and chair of international relations, University of Bath
Professor Geraint Reesdirector, UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience; senior clinical fellow, Wellcome Trust
Dr Sally Satelresident scholar, American Enterprise Institute; psychiatrist; author, Brainwashed: the seductive appeal of mindless neuroscience
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Leveson one year on: what future for press freedom?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2013 on Sunday 20 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
It is a year since Lord Justice Leveson published his inquiry into the ‘Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press,’ but decisions about future press regulation are still far from being resolved. Attempts by Labour peers to include Leveson-type reforms in the recent defamation bill have failed, and the prime minister’s cunning plan to avoid state regulation of the press through a Royal Charter have floundered, as no publishers have agreed to sign up to the proposed regulator. Leveson and his team have been beset by scandals, and rumours that the future of press regulation was decided over pizza in the early hours by politicians and three members of the pro-regulation Hacked Off lobby group, but without a single member of the press present have marred the government’s approach. Even the ongoing support from celebs such as Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan has done little to keep it in favour. As the press formulate an alternative, what’s now been dubbed the ‘pizza charter’ seems doomed to failure.
Is the Leveson report now - as is widely reported in the press – discredited, or is all the muckraking and conspiracy theorising by the press a conscious attempt by the ‘feral’ press to dodge his proposals? With the public apparently supporting the implementation of Leveson –around two-thirds are in favour according to recent polls - how can it be in the public interest to have an unregulated press? Does the Royal Charter proposal does represent any sort of positive alternative to statute-backed regulation, or could the implications for free speech be even worse? Finally, with the so-called ‘blue-chip’ hackers - law firms and insurers – now under the spotlight, were offences by the press as grievous and isolated as was first made out?
SPEAKERSProfessor George Brockhead of journalism, City University London; author, Out of Print: newspapers, journalism and the business of news in the Digital Age
Professor Roger GraefCEO, Films of Record; award-winning filmmaker, including the Bafta winning Police series, Police 2001, Turning the Screws, and The Secret Policeman's Ball; visiting professor, Mannheim Centre for Criminology, LSE
Patrick Hayesdirector, British Educational Suppliers Association (BESA)
Professor Tim Luckhursthead, Centre for Journalism, University of Kent; author, Responsibility without Power: Lord Justice Leveson's constitutional dilemma
CHAIRViv Reganmanaging editor, spiked

Building trust or cleaning up the public realm?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2013 on Sunday 20 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The problem of collapsing trust has become all-pervasive. Many of society’s most treasured institutions, private and public, seem to have lost the faith of the public. Scandals have led many to question the integrity of the police, the Catholic Church, the banking system, parliament, newspapers, the BBC and the NHS. The responses to such crises now have a familiar script of their own: a public inquiry exposing institutional malaise, followed by swift calls for external regulation, tougher penalties, staff purges and ‘root-and-branch’ retraining. There have also been calls to protect whistleblowers and to ensure greater diversity at management level to guard against perceptions of cronyism.
While a bout of soul-searching is understandable following failures such as Mid-Staffs, however, the jury is out on how far such moves rebuild trust. External regulation is greeted with cynicism, provoking accusations of incompetence if the regulators are recruited from outside the profession (as in the NHS and police) and corruption if they are drawn from within (Libor). Self-regulation, meanwhile, is widely derided as, to quote Jeremy Paxman, akin to ‘the bloke down the pub telling you you’re sober enough to drive.’ For some, however, the crisis that engulfed safeguarding authorities over child abuse provides a salutary lesson of how efforts to restore trust can backfire: with ‘tainted’ senior staff replaced by inexperienced juniors and professional judgement eroded by bureaucratic exercises such as CRB checks. One doctor lamented, ‘every box ticked is a kindness lost’. More broadly, a concern with being seen to be whiter than white may be a distraction from the core work through which all institutions must ultimately win the public’s trust.
Does treating every individual as requiring constant scrutiny and supervision, and encouraging them to report on colleagues, risk undermining the professional ethos institutions draw their strength from? If a witchhunting dynamic is allowed to take hold – and those who seek to defend their reputations dismissed as arrogant troublemakers - are we in danger of driving anyone who doesn’t match up to a sanitised idea of the public servant out of our institutions? Do reasonable demands for accountability become too easily sacrificed to PR-friendly scapegoating and panicked reform? Or are such criticisms merely more buck-passing and resistance to much-needed change for failing organisations? Can anyone be trusted to restore the public’s faith in our institutions?
SPEAKERSLord Victor Adebowalechief executive, Turning Point; non-executive director, NHS England; chancellor, Lincoln University
Paul Daviespartner, PwC
Alex Deanemanaging director, FTI Consulting; Sky News regular; BBC Dateline London panellist; author Big Brother Watch: The state of civil liberties in modern Britain
Brendan O'Neilleditor, spiked; columnist, Big Issue; contributor, Spectator; author, A Duty to Offend: Selected Essays
Jill Rutterprogramme director, Institute for Government
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive