Reasons for Hope: Afua Hirsch and the Jo Cox Foundation

This post is written by Freddy Lowe, a third year student in English Literature at Edinburgh.

On May 5 2024, in the wake of pro-Palestine protests on US university campuses, journalist Afua Hirsch took to a CNN television panel to defend freedom of speech. She said, “I do question how much the university administration understands the concept of freedom of speech. … The point of freedom of speech is that people have the right to say things that people might find uncomfortable or inconvenient.”

Of course, sometimes it’s right to challenge more extreme activist methods. However (certainly in principle!), her words were spot-on and very welcome.

I was delighted to hear Hirsch say this as she comes from the proudly ‘woke’ side of politics, a faction often with the reputation of having no interest in free expression (especially according to more conservative media outlets). Hirsch defied that stereotype when she too came out fighting for what we all believe in: freedom to speak, even if it might offend, as offence is sometimes inevitable when fighting for various causes. Indeed, the tendency of hard conservative commentators to decry any pro-Palestine sentiment as anti-Semitic has seemed to inspire individuals hitherto more sceptical of academic freedom to reconsider their stance.

In Hirsch’s case, though, I wasn’t surprised. In late 2023, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie – a lifelong feminist and free-speech advocate – delivered a BBC Reith Lecture on Freedom of Speech. Hirsch was in the audience and praised her effusively. So it was clear for a while that she was not as far off from the core values of academic freedom as some would have you believe. Hirsch now co-hosts a history podcast called “Legacy” with historian Peter Frankopan, a show devoted to examining the legacies of complex historical figures. In an interview promoting the podcast, Hirsch said how much she appreciated the differences between her worldview and Frankopan’s. In the episode on Margaret Thatcher, Hirsch even goes so far as to defend Thatcher in some respects (usually in instances when she was faced with sexist media coverage), even though she profoundly disagrees with the Iron Lady’s politics. In short, this is not the behaviour of the stereotypically censorious lefty.

Across the range of issues she discusses, I have heartily agreed with Hirsch on some and profoundly disagreed with her on others. (Though one could probably say that about anyone; we are unlikely to agree with any one person in totality.) Regardless, her defence of the principle of academic freedom is as necessary as it is refreshing to hear from a side of the political spectrum not normally associated with free speech advocacy.

I mention all this in the interests of optimism. It is easy to feel dismayed at the level of authoritarianism and intolerance of disagreement that has accompanied the rise of online culture, among other factors. This is not a concocted culture-war conspiracy theory, as some otherwise very sound liberal commentators suggest. I spent a year with the Edinburgh University Student Newspaper where the students running it bent over backwards to “cater” (their word) to the views of their readers, nervous to publish anything that might challenge their readers or even present the other side of an argument. This climate of fear helps nobody.

Yet there is also hope. More and more news comes of public figures – often liberal, progressive people – coming forward to fight for academic freedom. Hirsch is one. Another recent example were the staff at the Jo Cox Foundation.

In James O’Brien’s masterful book How They Broke Britain, one of the named-and-shamed figures is Nigel Farage. On the day Farage released his infamous “Breaking Point” poster of Syrian refugees, Jo Cox – a lifelong advocate for refugee rights – was murdered by a far-right terrorist shouting, “Britain first.” Farage later claimed that Brexit was won “without a shot fired”.

Cut to several years later when Farage is once again back in the headlines for his Reform UK activism. In June, while promoting his campaign in Barnsley, a number of items were thrown at him. Days before, he had been covered in milkshake.

The Jo Cox Foundation released a statement calling the violence against Farage “completely unacceptable”. “There is a place in all elections for robust debate, absolutely, but physical violence against candidates is an affront to democracy.” Su Moore, the organisation’s CEO, later told the BBC about the Foundation’s advocacy for respect and civility. She believes that this kind of behaviour against Farage could be a slippery slope to even worse. “People don’t realise how serious [this kind of violence] is because it isn’t just a bit of heckling out and about in public or some cross words exchanged on social media…It’s things like firebombing people’s houses, having their tyres slashed, people having their families threatened, particularly for female politicians, multiple threats of sexual violence.”

Human nature makes it much harder to defend the free expression of ideas diametrically opposed to our own. Yet, in a democratic society, Nigel Farage has every right to carry out his Reform activism without fear of physical attacks. For the Jo Cox Foundation to be principled enough to defend the democratic rights of a man with whom they could not be more at odds was humbling to see. It was a masterclass in not just freedom of speech but magnanimity. (It is more magnanimity than Farage has ever shown them.)

If the whole university sector took as principled a stance as the Jo Cox Foundation, the world would be a better place. All institutions should follow their example (and extend it not just to physical harassment, but to workplace bullying too). Yes, the landscape for free speech often looks bleak. It is. Yet there is room for optimism too.