Professor Udo Schüklenk, based at Queen’s University, Ontario, is editor-in-chief of the peer-reviewed journal Bioethics.
In an editorial for the journal, Professor Schüklenk condemned the “social media facilitated outrage” that has already led to the cancellation of pro-life academics and the retraction of their research papers.
“What puzzles me about this behaviour is that it is antithetical to what academic freedom is all about”, wrote Schüklenk.
He continued: “In this journal, we have published during the last few years a fair number of papers by a small group of – arguably – activist antichoice academic writers… [and] prochoice academic social media activists lambasted the journal for publishing such content.”
Even though the papers passed the rigorous peer review process, the mob was not satisfied:
“Suspicions of us Editors’ motives were raised, were we perhaps secret supporters of a Handmaid’s Tale type society? Also, of course, questions about the quality of the journal and its review processes appeared. How could we publish such obviously flawed papers?…
“Those concerns strangely never seem to arise vis a vis content these same academic social media activists find agreeable.”
Nevertheless, Schüklenk and his fellow academics at Bioethics are dedicated to “protecting controversial thought” and “diversity of thought” while being “academically rigorous”.
Pushing Back Against Groupthink
Dr Daniel Frampton, SPUC’s Editorial Officer, said: “Free speech and academic freedom are under increasing threat in the West, and pro-life academics are on the frontline of this erosion of independent thought.
“This ongoing assault on academic freedom is profoundly worrying. The pursuit of knowledge is the very foundation of academia, which has been overtaken by groupthink and the urge to censor inconvenient truths or diverging opinions disingenuously labelled ‘offensive’.
“But academics can take inspiration from Professor Udo Schüklenk and his fellow editors who have taken a stand, not only for pro-life scientists with whom they might not agree, but also for academia and science.
“Censorship and science are incompatible. The urge to cancel thought says more about the censor’s insecurities than it does about the cancelled person. All academics have a duty to defend their fellows, especially those who hold minority views. Without freedom of expression, there can be no free society, no science.”
Ongoing Attack On Pro-life Students’ Free Speech
The Labour Government has announced that it will “stop further commencement” of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, legislation designed to protect the right to expression of pro-life students and academics across UK campuses.
In response, SPUC stated that “many students and staff will conclude that, by repealing the Freedom of Speech Act, the Labour Party condones and even encourages cancel culture at university and elsewhere”.
Professor Arif Ahmed, the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom set up as part of the Act, had previously warned that “there are now persistent and widespread concerns that many in higher education are being silenced, either by the activity of the university or by its inactivity”.
Earlier this year, members of the Manchester University Pro-Life Society had to be given a police escort out of a meeting held inside the Students’ Union building that was surrounded by aggressive demonstrators who shouted abuse and threats at them.
