“The last weeks of 2021 were extremely challenging for the Divinity Faculty.” Such reads the first line of the open letter penned by the so-called ‘Divine Dissenters,’ who attempted to bully Professor Aitken (Faculty Chair) into denouncing what should be one of the most widely celebrated periods in the faculty for years. This period championed freedom of speech and expression, seemingly bucking the trend of the oppressive wokemania rife on university campuses today. The faculty’s charges? Its “implication” in the extension of a platform to Dr. Jordan Peterson and Dr. Charles Murray during their respective visits to Cambridge late last term.

The letter continuously references how these invitations threaten the department’s ability to be a “welcoming community for minority scholars,” throwing around buzzwords such as “institutional racism.” Yet these amount to little more than dirty smear tactics, with racism and discrimination being used as a smokescreen disguising their collective efforts to silence those they oppose. If the concern was really one of inclusion and unity, one would have heard the same voices speak up when the Union invited Corbyn to speak last year, or when Priyamvada Gopal spouts her raving nonsense from the very same academic walls that house them both.

“Simply labelling anyone who leans rightward or supports Trump as somehow implicitly racist is a cheap method of disguise”

Despite their best efforts, the ‘Divine Dissenters’ couldn’t get past the first paragraph without letting their true motivation slip, as they note the supposed repugnance of Peter Thiel’s alleged role in the whole affair by describing him as a “major Trump donor.” That famous crime. It is not racism or inclusion that is of the authors’ concern; it is conservatism and the right. Simply labelling anyone who leans rightward or supports Trump as somehow implicitly racist is a cheap method of disguise. They choose to ignore the masses of good achieved by the Thiel Foundation, or the fact that PayPal (of which Thiel is a co-founder and former CEO) enabled nearly $17bn to be transferred to one million nonprofits, schools, campaigns and crowdfunders in 2020 alone. All that slips into mere irrelevancy simply because he likes Trump. If you don’t like Trump (join the club!), make your own billions and donate to Hilary’s 2024 campaign. That’s your right, nobody should stop you doing so and equally nobody should deny you a platform as a result.

The attack on Thiel proves that the Dissenters’ claims about race or equality are mere smoke and mirrors. It’s really about drowning out the voices of those who oppose them. The irony of a group supposedly standing for inclusivity and diversity being the most viciously intolerant is blindingly obvious. It’s easy to campaign for an ‘open and inclusive world’ when you define who gets to take part and what they’re allowed to say.

The letter goes on to stress the great shame of a D2g seminar becoming a discussion with Peterson (“without warning” may I add, as presumably they would have donned steal armour plates and rehearsed the Roman Tortoise formation had they been made aware of his arrival in advance), as well as the cancellation of an A9 lecture. This displays a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of university life. Should our goals as students really be to attend every A9 lecture at all costs, when, as it happens, attendance is optional? Should it be to strictly abide by the curriculum in every seminar, so that we may be released into the world with the profound ability to regurgitate The Republic from back to front? Or rather, is it about a balance; attending lectures and seminars but equally having the unique opportunity to hear a range of opinions spoken freely, not least by world-leading academics, and to test our own theories and understandings against those with whom we disagree?

“Amongst the queue was a buzz of intense and excited chatter between those who hated, loved, or were even indifferent to the views of Peterson”

You don’t have to like Peterson. Hell, you can bloody hate him for all I care. But what you can’t do is simply deny his right to speak and others’ right to listen because of your hatred. If you don’t want to hear him speak, don’t go, or walk out of the seminar. But if you really are in favour of championing “constructive conversation,” then do go. Exercise your unique opportunity to challenge the views you find so abhorrent as you sit in these seminars or participate in the lengthy Q&A opportunities for which Peterson purposely made time for in his public appearances.

Thankfully, I believe the large majority do indeed think this way. An illusion of exaggerated size is created as the super-woke minority often shout the loudest, whilst the rational majority feel gagged by the prospect of potential ‘cancellation.’ Still, they prefer to paint the image of James Orr and his “band of brothers” standing alone in their “dogged commitment” to free speech, as written in the Dissenters’ piece for Varsity last month.  Unless this lonely band of brothers extends so far as the packed Lady Mitchell Hall to hear Dr Peterson’s thoughts on the Divine Ideal, or the 5-hour long queue to hear his Q&A at the Union, it seems Orr was far from lonesome. Amongst the queue was a buzz of intense and excited chatter between those who hated, loved, or were even indifferent to the views of Peterson. What brought everyone together that day was their mutual appreciation of the opportunity to hear him speak in person, regardless of whether they planned to boo or cheer (although he was in fact received by the longest and loudest round of applause I have ever witnessed at the Union).

I want to be absolutely clear: championing inclusivity and combatting racism are two of the most important tasks one can partake in today, and I fully support all the measures enlisted in the letter (bar 1.1 and 1.2). However, by using these issues as toys in the attempt to muzzle views that they don’t like, the Dissenters are undermining that very mission. Aitken must, as he has thus far, stand by what is right in refusing to succumb to the Dissenters, and reaffirm that whilst the Faculty will remain committed to ensuring it continues to be a safe space for students of all backgrounds, it will refuse to compromise free speech in doing so, as long as it is neither hateful nor inciting violence. He, as well as we, must continue to see through the smoke.