
Pianist, Professor of Music, Culture and Society, @citysociology. Views here my own. Co-convenor @cityuniafaf, Secretary @lucaf_london
City of London, London
Joined September 2018
- Tweets14.3K
- Following3.1K
- Followers4.6K
- Likes8.2K
Prof Ian Pace retweeted
Fullwell Cross Library, Barkingside
1968
Frederick Gibberd & Partners
modernism-in-metroland.co.uk…
Prof Ian Pace retweeted
Proof if proof were needed that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act was necessary.
'A Lancaster spokesperson said it was “fully committed to protecting the free exchange of ideas and opinion on our campus and recognises the fundamental importance of academic freedom and freedom of speech”.
“At the same time, we are mindful of our duty of care to the wider university community. Following complaints from a number of staff about comments made in the public domain and their compliance with standards as well as the potential personal impact on colleagues we took the decision to start an independent investigation.'
timeshighereducation.com/new…
Two articles coming up.
1. On Monday, in @timeshighered , a long piece, drawing extensively on HESA data, considering the feasibility of various forms of provision in the arts and humanities, especially music, in light of the confirmation of the Nottingham closure. This will doubtless generate very mixed reactions, but it is a debate which is needed.
2. On Friday, in @CAmericain_mag , a reflection on watching ‘The Wargame’ and other things imagining possible nuclear conflict in the present day, then comparing this with the memories of growing up during the second peak of the Cold War in the early 1980s.
Prof Ian Pace retweeted
This is another type of freedom of speech: the freedom to criticise (meekly, by the way), the senior management of universities. It seems that when such criticism happens, it is not countered with a principled argument, but with cheap intimidation.
The case of Mike Ryder at Lancaster University may become a test case for HEFSA’s complaints scheme.
What some, including some university administrators and HR people, fail to understand is the extent to which academic freedom involves the privileging of attempts to find the truth over all over objectives. Those include the reputation of one’s institution or colleagues.
I have heard academics say that senior academics should not criticise the work of junior ones, and that their role is to be supportive and mentoring instead. I don’t accept that at all where such roles have not been formally enshrined. Nor that a white academic cannot criticise the work of a black one, a man that of a woman, and so on. The critiques must focus on the nature of the work, not the egos of those behind it. And if the work of marketing departments can be argued to be not up to scratch or ineffective, that is their problem, not with the one who argues it. (1)
timeshighereducation.com/new…
And this.
Here's my @Spectator column,
'What’s really causing anti-Semitism in British schools'
spectator.com/article/whats-…
Sir David Bell’s report into anti-Semitism in schools (which will be published this afternoon but has been widely trailed) is an important document with a series of worthwhile recommendations. He finds that three in five Jewish students have experienced anti-Semitism – a statistic that should be profoundly shocking but is now entirely unsurprising – and that fewer than half think that there is any point reporting it, given that schools have consistently refused to take serious action when it is reported.
In that context, Sir David’s recommendation that schools and colleges should be forced to recognise anti-Semitism as a specific category of harm – as opposed to the general requirement to tackle racism – and to take explicit action to tackle it is eminently sensible.
But for all Sir David’s good intentions, his report suffers from the same fundamental flaw as almost all such official analyses of anti-Semitism: his terms of reference did not allow him to examine the causes of the Jew hate he found, only its extent. Which begs so many questions.
None of those questions will even be asked by Lucy Powell, the Education Secretary, in her response to the report in the Commons this afternoon, let alone answered. She will doubtless make a big deal of the fact that Labour commissioned the report and will – as all politicians always do – tell MPs that anti-Semitism has no place in schools. It’s the line we always hear whenever there is a major incident – demonstrating in reality that the opposite is true and that there is a very large place for anti-Semitism in Britain today.
Any analysis of the growth of anti-Semitism in the years since Israel began its military operation in Gaza in response to the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023 would have to include the words and actions of Labour ministers who have deliberately turned on Israel, in an attempt to appease the sectarian Muslim voters who started to desert Labour in the last general election. Ministers’ rhetoric – such as Ed Miliband speaking last month of Israeli war crimes and ethnic cleansing – has the effect of licensing Jew hate. The government cannot even bring itself to condemn the regular hate marches – sending the message that Jew hate on the streets is entirely legitimate. Add to that the obsession of so many Labour backbenchers with Israel and you have a recipe for the spread of anti-Semitism.
Then there is the elephant in the room which few are willing to identify: that much of the problem in schools lies with Muslim children (see this report from Parents Against Anti-Semitism). All too often, this is swept under carpet in fear of accusations of Islamophobia.A typical incident was reported earlier this year, in which two Muslim girls approached a child and stated: ‘We will send our family to behead yours like Jews deserve.’ The incident was reported to the Metropolitan Police but their response was that the girls involved were considered exemplary students and no substantive action would be taken, except talking to them via Police Community Support Officers. Islamophobia and right-wing extremism are often seen as a more significant concern than anti-Semitism.
When it comes to having a clear-sighted approach to the issues around anti-Semitism it is difficult to think of a worse possible education secretary than Lucy Powell. Infamously, she claimed that the Manchester Arena suicide bombing which killed 22 people had nothing to do with Islam. Asked on the BBC after the murders, ‘How serious is the problem of Islamist radicalisation in Manchester?’ she replied: ‘I’m not sure that this is the right moment to totally go into that, because I don’t even want to ascribe what has happened to the Islam faith.’ Powell also denied the evidence of links between the bomber, Islamist radicalism and certain mosques, telling the Manchester Evening News: ‘I’m particularly worried about that kind of narrative that somehow there’s areas or hotspots of Manchester that are hotbeds of radicalisation.’ She also, of course, described concern over the rape scandal as a right-wing ‘dog-whistle’.
Sir David is to be commended for his report. It is not his fault that it was limited to the extent of school anti-Semitism rather than the causes. But we already know what will happen now, because it always happens. Instead of dealing with the facts of Jew hatred in Britain in 2016, the report’s findings will be attacked with reference to the Gaza war – as if Jewish children at school in Britain are soldiers in the IDF, which itself demonstrates the problem of anti-Semitism.
And this, for @CAmericain_mag , including material on the attempts at rhetorical blackmail to stop academics criticising the work of their minority colleagues, part of the phenomenon I believe made Jason Arday possible. Not least through the insidious influence of Robin DiAngelo. (3/3)
cafeamericainmag.com/self-ce…
The case of Mike Ryder at Lancaster University may become a test case for HEFSA’s complaints scheme.
What some, including some university administrators and HR people, fail to understand is the extent to which academic freedom involves the privileging of attempts to find the truth over all over objectives. Those include the reputation of one’s institution or colleagues.
I have heard academics say that senior academics should not criticise the work of junior ones, and that their role is to be supportive and mentoring instead. I don’t accept that at all where such roles have not been formally enshrined. Nor that a white academic cannot criticise the work of a black one, a man that of a woman, and so on. The critiques must focus on the nature of the work, not the egos of those behind it. And if the work of marketing departments can be argued to be not up to scratch or ineffective, that is their problem, not with the one who argues it. (1)
timeshighereducation.com/new…
Some more on the mistaking of outlawing criticism by presenting it as injury in here, originally published in @timeshighered in August. (2)
ianpace.substack.com/p/the-a…
Prof Ian Pace retweeted
"Ryder has since been informed that posts he made about the investigation on social media will also be considered during the process."
Prof Ian Pace retweeted
"If the claim that genetics contributes to average differences in test scores is given to the courts to judge, we return ourselves to the burning of Giordano Bruno in 1600...We can reject racism and assert that Nathan Cofnas is being treated shamefully. There is no trade-off. A university and a culture that fail to understand this have lost their way."
Prison or Peer Review?
It is a disgrace that @nathancofnas may face jail in Belgium. @Rosalind_Arden_'s latest for @Quillette
quillette.com/2026/10/22/pri…
Prof Ian Pace retweeted
For the Sally Rooney - Salman Rushdie parallel to work, a major Jewish leader would have had to call for her murder, gangs of marauding Jews would have had to burn down bookstores, and a Jewish extremist would have had to stab her eye out with a knife.
If you ever sought out the novels of Sally Rooney in bookshops – when that was still possible – you’d know they sit in the fiction stacks adjacent to the novels of another SR whose books have been withdrawn in dastardly political circumstances. Until last week, “Rooney” and “Rushdie” had little in common beyond being shelfmates; now they have more than just a physical proximity.
@tanjil_rashid_: This is censorship by other means newstatesman.com/comment/202…
Prof Ian Pace retweeted
For my money, this is the single most frightening image from any film.
#TheInnocents
Prof Ian Pace retweeted
“Please stop adopting generalised statements of values — this inevitably encourages decision-making referring to a framework that has no relationship to the law.”
Sound advice for universities and their senior leaders from @akuareindorf KC, speaking at Edinburgh’s Conflict on Campus conference.
In CAF’s experience, it’s not uncommon to find a senior administrator or HR officer reminding an academic of the trite but true fact that freedom of speech is a “qualified right”, before proceeding, sometimes in the very same email, to assert that an alleged breach of the university's “values” takes the academic’s speech beyond the limits of what the law protects — thereby justifying anything from an admonition to “reflect on their tone or choice of words” to the launch of a disciplinary investigation.
timeshighereducation.com/new…
Prof Ian Pace retweeted
Universities in England must actively protect lawful free speech and academic freedom under strengthened rules from the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. You would think highly paid senior managers would know this.
Prof Ian Pace retweeted
Senior academic leaders risk chilling free speech on campus by signing open letters in support of political causes because this could be mistaken as representing an institution’s official position, England’s academic freedom tsar Arif Ahmed has said. @jgro_the reports #academicfreedom #freespeech
timeshighereducation.com/new…
Prof Ian Pace retweeted
Weirdly I wrote a scenario on here the other day that was very similar to this... given their academic interests, very clearly covered by Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.
Prof Ian Pace retweeted
1/ Assuming the facts below are accurate, the university appears to be in violation of its legal duties to secure free speech and academic freedom for its staff.
If not quickly resolved internally, this seems like a good case for the new OfS free speech complaints scheme.





























