“Offensiphobia” is a Red Herring: On the Problem of Censorship and Academic Freedom

The Journal of Ethics 24 (1):31-54 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In a recent article, J. Angelo Corlett criticises what he takes to be the ‘offensiphobic’ practices characteristic of many universities. The ‘offensiphobe’, according to Corlett, believes that offensive speech ought to be censured precisely because it offends. We argue that there are three serious problems with Corlett’s discussion. First, his criticism of ‘offensiphobia’ misrepresents the kinds of censorship practiced by universities; many universities may in some way censure speech which they regard as offensive, but this is seldom if ever a manifestation of ‘offensiphobia’. Second, we attempt to reconstruct Corlett’s criticism of ‘offensiphobia’ as a criticism of the practice of censuring hate speech, and show that this argument is unsuccessful. Third, we offer some brief reflections on how labelling universities as ‘offensiphobic’ is especially problematic in light of the current climate of political interference in university research and teaching.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 106,211

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-11-01

Downloads
100 (#225,525)

6 months
4 (#1,001,261)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Ben Cross
Wuhan University'
Louise Richardson-Self
University of Tasmania

References found in this work

On Epistemic Appropriation.Emmalon Davis - 2018 - Ethics 128 (4):702-727.
No Platforming.Robert Mark Simpson & Amia Srinivasan - 2018 - In Jennifer Lackey, Academic Freedom. Oxford University Press. pp. 186-209.
Beyond Belief: Pragmatics in Hate Speech and Pornography1.Rae Langton - 2012 - In Ishani Maitra & Mary Kate McGowan, Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 72.

View all 18 references / Add more references