We can laugh at the fragile progressives on campus and call them ‘snowflakes.’ But do not dismiss them as impotent.
On Tuesday, I reported for National Review that the mayor of a district in Brussels ordered the police to shut down the National Conservative Conference to “guarantee public safety.” Over 15 police officers stood outside the venue to prevent people from entering. Thankfully, the prime minister of Belgium, Alexander De Croo, described the incident as “unacceptable” and affirmed that “banning political meetings is unconstitutional.” On Wednesday, the Alliance Defending Freedom International announced that a Belgian court had struck down the mayor’s order, so the conference continued without police interference.
Plenty of people condemned the mayor’s order on social media. But some celebrated it. One particular (now deleted) tweet by Vernal Scott attracted attention: “I applaud the mayor and police of Brussels for their decision to close down this conference.” When social-media users prompted Scott for an explanation, he echoed the mayor by saying “the far-right are not welcome, not much else to say.” Scott added: “The mayor and police know their city and clearly take the welfare of their citizens to heart. Who can argue against that?”
The important matter is not what was said, but rather, who said it: Vernal Scott is the Head of the Equality and Diversity Unit at my own institution, Oxford University. It is alarming that a senior administrator at a historic university endorsed state action against a conference where people debated ideas. Who were these people? Some were current or former elected officials, such as Nigel Farage, Suella Braverman, Stephen Bartulica, and Hungary prime minister Viktor Orbán. Others have illustrious academic backgrounds and publication records, like Yoram Hazony and Matthew Goodwin. What were the dangerous ideas that threatened to disturb the public peace (somehow, from within a hotel)? The panel topics at NatCon included energy security, borders, national sovereignty, and threats to faith and the family.
Ideally, exactly these important issues would be similarly debated at academic institutions today, and not only among self-described conservatives. After all, universities should be committed to seeking truth, and that requires robust — even uncomfortable — debate. On paper, Oxford affirms that “free speech is the lifeblood of a university” and “it helps us approach truth” which means members will be “confronted with views that some find unsettling, extreme or offensive.”
But rigorous debate hardly exists on campuses, partially due to the expansive DEI bureaucracies that censor and punish speech that might cause even the slightest discomfort. Oxford’s Equality and Diversity Unit warns about “micro-behaviours,” which are “the tiny, often unconscious things that we say and do” that leave someone feeling “excluded, unappreciated and disrespected.” (Don’t ask how we “unconsciously” say something.) The university’s policies state that “posting offensive comments on electronic media,” “demeaning criticism,” or “deliberately using the wrong name or pronoun in relation to a transgender person” may amount to “harassment.” (Oh, and do not dare make a “biphobic” joke.)
The university further seeks to suppress specific words, not only ideas. During my first semester, I received an “LGBTQ+ inclusivity training” pamphlet from a college representative that instructed me to “avoid using gendered language.” The pamphlet advises saying “pregnant people” instead of “pregnant women” and “people at risk of prostate cancer” instead of “men.” In addition to abandoning supposedly offensive language, one must acquire new words like “amatonormativity,” which is the “idea that everyone wants or should want a monogamous romantic relationship” and such “prejudice” hurts “aromantic people.”
We can laugh at the fragile progressives on campus and call them “snowflakes.” But do not dismiss them as impotent. Although they claim to be “liberals,” their authoritarian impulses are clear. It isn’t surprising that a person who endorsed government censorship of conservatives is in a senior administrative role that regulates “offensive” speech to promote “inclusion.” The advocates of “inclusivity” are the most fierce supporters of exercising power against anyone who expresses the slightest disagreement.