It’s time academics realised they can't give in to blackmail

Public institutions must understand that there are consequences for caving in to cancel culture - that there are fundamental moral, as well as, yes, financial implications to censorship and historical vandalism.

So, we should welcome the news that millions of pounds worth of donations to the University of Edinburgh have been affected by their 2020 decision to rename the David Hume Tower. They took this decision after a small campaign by students to rename this prominent campus building due to the philosopher’s views on race.

The phrase “go woke, go broke” refers to consumers protesting at a business’ wokery by withholding their cash, in the hope that reduced income will spook a company into doing what it was originally meant to do: provide goods and services and create jobs. There is something strangely democratic about it.

But when it comes to public institutions, such as universities (which have become increasingly confused about their moral purpose), they can still rely on cash from the public purse – hence they have had no problem appealing to vanishingly small minoritarian interests, to the detriment of the majority.

Whilst we do not want damaging boycotts to become a new dimension of the culture war, it is right that pressure is placed on institutions when they act in ways that contravene their moral duty.

People are exhausted with having the legacy that they inherited tarnished, even disfigured, in order to satisfy the fashionable preoccupations of the day. It is also essential that students understand that whilst asking questions and disagreeing is welcome and to be encouraged, the university isn’t merely about having your ideas and worldview affirmed.

By caving in to demands by woke students, the university undermines its authority and deprives students of the chance to have their horizons expanded and be challenged. They alienate the young from their cultural inheritance and untether them from the past. This is a moral catastrophe.

Hume held some views on race that are objectionable. He opposed slavery yet encouraged his patron Lord Hertford to invest in a number of slave plantations. Inviting students to engage with such complexity, no matter how hard to fathom, develops them intellectually and forces us to grapple with the realities of our past. Change the name of the tower and you deprive students of the ability to learn and to take history seriously, as something more complicated than good v evil.

Further, we are embedding a regressive and patronising view of black people. By renaming the David Hume Tower, the University of Edinburgh risks accidentally affirming the view that black students are fragile, in need of special protection, that they must be sheltered from facts. This is wrong. All of us, no matter our heritage, must negotiate the legacy of the past, and learn how to both appraise it, and transcend it.

Financial pressure alone will not stem the tide of the historical and cultural onslaught that is being enacted across our institutions, but at the very least, it will give these institutions pause for thought. Ultimately, the crisis of confidence and authority must be resolved at the root, in our hearts and minds, where we develop the maturity to recognise the shortcomings of our forebears but honour the immense contributions that they made. This is the message that universities must relearn and transmit to students, not censorship.