I’m fascinated by the story of British psychologist Christopher Brand. How does one balance academic freedom with social responsibility?
In October 1996 Brand came to the defence of Nobel laureate Daniel Carleton Gajdusek who had been charged with paedophilia. Brand argued that sex with a consenting partner over the age of 12 was not harmful so long as both partners had an above-average IQ.[15][16]
The proceedings were initiated in 1996 after the dean of social sciences complained.[16] Edinburgh University’s Chaplain, a supporter of the Anti-Nazi League, had taken Brand’s e-mailed reflections on pederasty to the Scottish press. Edinburgh’s Student newspaper’s frontpage banner headline was FIRST IT WAS BLACKS, THEN IT WAS WOMEN, NOW IT’S KIDS.
Brand was fired a year later after hearings from his 27-year tenured position at Edinburgh University in 1997.[17][18] The University said this was for conduct that “brought the university into disrepute.”
Brand appealed and sued the University for unfair dismissal, and received £12,000 (in those days the maximum obtainable from an Employment Tribunal) in an out-of-court settlement.[19] His case became a cause célèbre among advocates of academic freedom. Marek Kohn cited the Brand incident in a defence of intellectual freedom on the Internet.[20] Others, however, including a former Brand student, considered academic freedom a privilege that carried with it an expectation of “social responsibility”.[21]
Eric Barendt (University College London), in the chapter “The Chris Brand Case” in his 2010 book Academic Freedom, said Brand should have tried harder to get on with his colleagues[22] – who Brand replied were “Jew-leftie-commie[s]”.[23]
