Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

The idea of security of tenure for academics was to ensure that people
capable of thinking were in a position to develop new ideas, about
society, literature, science and politics. This is essential to prevent
totalitarianism, but also to prevent the ossification of society and to
allow science to develop without stultification (or more likely the
rapid overtaking of our science by universities in the far east).

Best argument I've seen for sacking most of them, then. People are
*not* in a position to dissent from orthodoxy, as we have seen with the
safe spaces and no-platforming bull****. And that if you don't follow
the prescribed line in certain areas, no tenure or research grants for
*you*.

What you describe is how it's *supposed* to work, too bad then that, in
fact, it doesn't. More the reverse actually.

I think you are confusing the work of the University with the activities
of undergraduate clubs and societies and/or public lecture put on by the
universtiy managers to encourage political favours or donations. These
are generally of no great account. The work of the university goes on
mainly by correspondence, but academics tend to have whoever they want
to have at conferences etc.



--

Roger Hayter