LETTERS
Academic freedom
Sir: Four fellows of my college still do not understand (Letters, 7 January) why so many people took offence at the disinvita- tion of Ernst Nolte from the Wolfson College Lectures, 1989.
It is striking that Messrs Booker, Fran- cis, McKerrow and Walton do not say why Nolte was banned. Instead, they bleat that the decision 'was taken by a democratically elected committee'. Are they seriously justifying the suppression of freedom of speech provided it is done 'democratical- ly'? They may as well endorse book- buntings with the authors chosen by PR.
Principles aside (where these gentlemen presumably prefer to leave them), the disinvitation-procedure left something to be desired. The committee which reversed the decision to invite Nolte met during the long vacation. Like many others, I was away from Oxford, having as 'convenor' informed the college president of my likely absence, Sir Raymond Hoffenberg's role in the affair is disputed. I think we can all agree that he has not been without initia- tive or influence.
Four other points are relevant: Professor W. Brus, a Fellow of Wolfson and one of the lecturers, was not consulted about disinviting Nolte. Senior members of the committee who were absent do not remem- ber such a controversial proposal on the agenda circulated beforehand. It was not recorded in the minutes published after- wards. One absentee only learned of the decision weeks later from me. In order it may have been. Glasnost it was not.
In their most defamatory passage, my senior colleagues allege that I have pub- lished 'untruths, innuendo, insinuation and distortion', but their own charges are not specific, so I cannot pour my scorn on them precisely.
By reminding me that I am 'still' a member of College, are they trying to intimidate me? Members of Wolfson know these characters already, but your readers must wonder how grown men, let alone four fellows of an Oxford college, could contrive such a letter.
Mark Almond
Wolfson College, Oxford
Previous page
