The Left was once viewed as the primary vehicle for working-class people to find and use their voices to organise for their material interests. Now, rather than demanding better pay and conditions, its adherents seem to spend more time organising against working people who express widely-held views on race and gender.
The campaign of harassment and intimidation aimed against the philosopher Kathleen Stock at the University of Sussex highlighted how academic institutions, which exist for the purpose of rigorous intellectual exchange, are failing to uphold this foundational ideal. However, the phenomenon is spreading. Far from a problem confined to universities, ordinary people are being censured and harangued for questioning divisive and partisan approaches to matters of race and gender, violating taboos they didn’t even know existed.
Today, this newspaper reports the story of Sean Corby, an employee at Acas – the government-funded employment arbitration service. He was put under investigation after complaints were made about messages he shared in an organisation-wide equality and diversity forum. One of the posts included a quote from the American civil rights activist Howard Thurman which criticised racial separatism and segregation. Another quoted the writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s critique of cancel culture. Another linked to an article by me.
Most people would surely think that these posts expressed perfectly acceptable opinions on the importance of free speech and the problems with identity politics. But a complaint alleged that they demonstrated “hatred”. Although it was not upheld, Corby was informed last week that an appeal had been lodged and he has accused Acas of acting like “east Germany”. Acas says it does not recognise that picture.
There is a wider problem in institutions across the UK, however. Narrow forms of social justice activism have moved to exploit the weakness and naivety of many organisations and, under the guise of seemingly benign “diversity and inclusion” policies and practices, ideas influenced by identity politics are becoming institutionalised without debate. Once implemented, it becomes very difficult for organisations to roll back from them because they have created structures and incentives that perpetuate censorious thinking.
One of the most chilling aspects of this trend is the false consensus it creates. As institutions act as thought-police for their employees, they mislead the public into thinking these issues are settled, when in fact people are merely scared to express an opposing opinion. Institutions are in danger of compromising their impartiality if they fail to recognise the biases in their assumptions.
It will take a long time to undo the institutionalisation of identity politics – a process that is becoming more and more entrenched. But it’s far from impossible. Any ideology that relies on the censorship of disagreement is already sitting on quicksand. Just as race and gender ideologues organise, so too must liberal-minded folk who support tolerance, open discussion and an end to the weaponisation of our institutions for partisan activism.
Inaya Folarin Iman is a free speech campaigner and presenter on GB News
