‘Dr. Carl was chosen by the College from a field of some 943 candidates in the field of the arts, humanities and social sciences. On the face of it he was an extremely strong candidate indeed having performed with conspicuous success at every academic stage’
‘There was common agreement amongst the Interview Panel that Dr. Carl was the most impressive of all the interviewees…’
Of the ‘open letter’, which has now been signed by over 500 academics, some of them in subjects like critical race studies and media studies, Sir Patrick wrote:‘The Fellow who missed the final discussion was very clear that Dr. Carl was the best candidate of those he had seen, and he was the unanimous choice. No-one else impressed to anything like the same degree.’
‘This letter made largely unparticularized allegations and assertions. It is surprising to me that so many academics – mostly outside Dr Carl’s discipline and most of whom could not possibly have verified the facts for themselves and had not sought any response from Dr Carl – were willing to give their support to a letter of that kind.’
We know this thanks to an FOI request that forced St Edmund’s to release Sir Patrick’s report. If St Edmund’s was hoping Sir Patrick’s investigation would furnish it with a pretext for getting rid of Noah Carl, it would have been disappointed. Yet get rid of him it did in April of this year, with the master of the college, Matthew Bullock, cravenly apologising to the protestors for the ‘hurt’ Carl’s appointment caused.
Was the other ‘investigation’ so damning that it left the college with no choice? We don’t know because the college refuses to release it, but one of the merits of Carl’s lawsuit is that it will force St Edmund’s to do so. The support for Noah Carl, both in the academic community and beyond, has been considerable. A counter-petition defending him has been signed by over 600 academics, many of them far more eminent than the authors of the ‘open letter’. Supportive articles have run across the media, including this one in the Telegraph by a former deputy mayor of London and this leading article in the Times, which described Carl as the latest victim of the authoritarian Left. But strong words alone will not be sufficient to end this tsunami of Maoist intolerance. As Carl says, ‘If we want to safeguard academic freedom, and freedom of speech more generally, we need to start imposing real, material costs on the institutions that buckle under activists’ pressure.’ That is why everyone who believes in intellectual freedom should support his lawsuit. It is worth noting that going to law has worked in similar circumstances. In Australia, the former head of the physics department at James Cook university – Peter Ridd – was fired in 2018 for disputing his colleagues’ alarmist claims about the impact of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef. He decided to sue, financed his case via a crowdfunding campaign, and in April the Federal Circuit Court of Australia ruled his sacking ‘unlawful’. He is now seeking reinstatement. Another cause for hope is the lawsuit that Gibson’s Bakery brought against Oberlin College after unfairly being branded ‘racist’ by a group of students (I wrote about this in The Spectator last week). Earlier this month, a jury awarded the small business damages of £34m ($44m). Let’s hope that Noah Carl’s brave decision to take on his former employer has an equally positive outcome. To paraphrase Edward Grey, the lamps are going out all over Europe’s universities. If we want to see them lit again, we need to fight for freedom with every weapon in our arsenal. You can donate to Noah Carl’s crowdfund here
Comments