Jordan Peterson will show us if Cambridge has really changed

In 2019, academics at Cambridge University’s Divinity Faculty invited Jordan Peterson to lecture on the book of Exodus. Was that a good idea? Not being an Old Testament scholar I can hardly comment; but some experts clearly thought so. He would have lectured and given seminars; his views would have been challenged and maybe refuted. Many young people would have learnt something, about him and about Exodus.

Except none of that happened. Peterson had once been photographed next to someone in what was described as an anti-islamic T-shirt. The university cited this “endorsement by association” as grounds for cancelling the whole visit.

That argument is so bad that it must have been a pretext; the truth, I fear, is that Cambridge simply surrendered to the mob. That he has now been re-invited goes some way to removing that stain on our institution and restoring our reputation as a free and open-minded academy. We should be grateful to Dr James Orr from the Divinity Faculty for his courage and vision in extending it.

Peterson’s views don’t seem unusual or extreme. Cicero’s complaint, that no view is so crazy that some philosopher has not defended it, is as true now as when he made it. I know, or know of, academics who have argued that infanticide is not wrong, that matter does not exist, or that being born is a serious harm. These propositions are all interesting and, true or not, deserve serious and often mind-expanding discussion.

The point is not whether or not we agree (and I suspect I disagree with much of what Peterson says, particularly about the importance of religion). The point is that there is a difference between agreeing with someone’s views and defending his right to express them.

This distinction has been understood since the Enlightenment by everyone who is not a fascist.

Peterson’s belated visit is now a litmus test of whether recent changes at the alma mater of Hugh Latimer and John Milton are enough to protect this principle.

In March 2020, the university proposed a “free speech” policy which would allow the authorities to prohibit speakers who might threaten student “welfare”. “Welfare” being so vague, the censors could easily have used this policy to block speakers such as Peterson.

Thankfully, the idea didn’t go through. A few academics, including myself, staged a rebellion, eventually forcing a vote of all dons to decide between this policy and a more liberal amendment saying that the authorities cannot block an invited speaker unless permitting them would be illegal. The rebels won easily; and Peterson’s visit will test this new policy.

It will also be a test of leadership. Clearly some elements within the university want to control our speech. This was evident in May, when Cambridge attempted to introduce a new system for anonymously reporting “micro-aggressions” which would have included “stereotyping” religion.

The authorities were forced to abandon the plan and vice-chancellor Stephen Toope, who recently announced that he will soon be leaving Cambridge, disowned it, saying at the time: “I … want to bolster the university’s reputation for inquiry and vigorous debate. I want diversity of thought, not enforced conformity.”

The reaction to Peterson’s arrival will tell us much about whether Cambridge is on the side of the Enlightenment or the mob.