ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The MP Chris Heaton-Harris¡¯ ¡°polite request¡± for vice-chancellors to provide details of course content about ¡°the teaching of European affairs, with particular reference to Brexit¡± (¡°Minister under pressure over MP¡¯s ¡®McCarthyite¡¯ letter¡±, News, 2 November) is not the first challenge to academic autonomy.

In the 1980s, under a previous Tory government, an early morning broadcast of an interview with Cheshire¡¯s director of education about the Great Education Reform Bill, as part of an Open University course on education policy and provision, resulted in a call from the Department of Education and Science demanding a right of reply. We had to explain that this was the OU equivalent of a visiting lecturer in a classroom, a legitimate academic critique, not a party political broadcast.

We also had the famous enquiry into alleged Marxist bias, triggered by a handful of people when thousands took the courses involved and broadcasts attracted audiences of up to a quarter of a million. The enquiry found no substance to the claims, but even so, three stages of external scrutiny of draft materials were introduced to ensure ¡°balance¡± within any element, so that one unit putting one perspective, and another putting a different one was not allowable. BBC staff were very nervous, and I had imposed on me right-wing contributors who insisted on being subject to no comment and no editing. The external assessment process deemed at least one programme imbalanced ¨C to the Right! ¨C but I accepted that, believing that my students were good enough to spot ¡°false truths¡±. More insidiously, self-censorship removed a valid critical perspective from courses for several years.

Plus ?a change¡­

Ian McNay
Professor emeritus, higher education and management
University of Greenwich

Letters should be sent to:?THE.Letters@tesglobal.com
Letters for publication in?Times Higher Education?should arrive by 9am Monday.
View terms and conditions.