The Free Speech Union (FSU) has published an article about my open letter to the Royal Society regarding the evident contraventions of its code of conduct by one of their Fellows, Elon Musk FRS. Unfortunately, Frederick Attenborough’s piece contains errors, omissions and speculative rhetoric which together contrive to misconstrue the meaning and intent of my letter.
Nevertheless, I am grateful to the FSU for their piece because it gives me an opportunity to address free speech issues head on. They are very important.
But first let’s deal with the errors and omissions. Attenborough writes that my letter “cites Musk’s criticisms of net zero-style policy” but in fact it does not mention this.
He also states that the letter “frames Musk’s actions as inconsistent with the Society’s statement of values.” This is true, but Attenborough omits to mention that this statement is contained within the Society’s Code of Conduct which states:
“Fellowship and Foreign Membership of the Society is a privilege predicated on adherence to particular standards of conduct. Fellows and Foreign Members, by joining the Society, agree to abide by this Code of Conduct.”
To be clear: fellowship of the Royal Society is a privilege which brings with it responsibilities.
The particular breaches of the Code of Conduct are outlined in the letter, which goes on to express my puzzlement and dismay that the Royal Society has decided to take no action. Attenborough could perhaps have attempted to show that the charges laid against Musk do not amount to breaches of the code, but he did not.
Instead, he characterises the letter as a call to expel Musk from the Royal Society on account of “his political associations and opinions.” But it doesn’t call for expulsion and the argument is not about associations or opinions. It is about breaches of the code.
Implicitly, of course, expulsion from the fellowship is one conceivable outcome of the Royal Society’s consideration of the case (and clearly that’s an outcome that some would favour). However, other responses are also possible, for example, a request for Musk to demonstrate his adherence to the code.
However, what we have is no action and no comment. Attenborough rightly lauds the Royal Society for its principles of intellectual independence and open debate, but there has been no open debate on this matter. He also rightly reminds us of the Society’s Latin motto Nullius in verba – “Take nobody’s word for it”. But in this instance, ironically, the Royal Society is asking us to do just that – take their word without any explanation of their decision.
Free speech is a cornerstone of an open society, but it is a qualified right in law and, effectively, within the code of conduct of the Royal Society. There are political views which amount to hate speech which are unlawful in the UK. Equally, there are standards of behaviour (e.g. statements, actions) which can fall foul of the Royal Society’s code. This is not about policing political views or affiliations among Fellows, however much the FSU might want to cast it in that light. Indeed, it is important for Royal Society to accommodate a wide range of political views, and to the best of my knowledge it already does. What this episode has revealed is the need for greater clarity from the Royal Society on how it will manage breaches of its code that have a political character (e.g. in Musk’s case, his call to prosecute another FRS, Anthony Fauci, or his involvement in a government that is recklessly endangering the conduct of science in the USA).
It’s important to do that well because there will always be instances where rules about speech or behaviour rub up against rights of free expression. Which brings me to Attenborough’s last omission.
For all his concern about the free speech implications of a letter asking the Royal Society to take action in respect of Elon Musk, Attenborough says nothing about Musk’s control of free speech on X or the censorship being imposed on federal agencies and scientists by the Trump administration of which Musk is a core member.
If the FSU really cares freedom of speech, shouldn’t they be calling out censorship wherever it occurs?
I believe the FSU was founded as a reaction to a perceived tendency on the Left, and particularly in academia, for liberality of thought and opinion, however disagreeable or noxious, to be eclipsed by a kind of puritanical monoculture in which any and all views that differ from the orthodoxy to be suppressed, and its proponents vilified and abused. This has extended to the kind of discrimination based on race or creed that the adherents to this extreme view profess to despise (just stand in a Student Union and shout that you’re Jewish — I dare you. I know I wouldn’t). This has forced some academics into silence for fear that any casual utterance might result in personal abuse online, or even the termination of their careers. Unfortunately, universities and employers have generally been reluctant to support such cases.The vindictive, catastrophic policies of the current US administration — relentlessly anti-scientific and inimical to diversity and inclusion — can be seen as a reaction to this. It’s ironic, though, that the recent utterances of the Vice President of the US, JD Vance, suggesting that this tendency is particularly prevalent in Europe, fail to point out that it all began in the US. None of this exonerates the FSU, though, nor excuses their errors, and your post above very properly concentrates on these rather than the FSU itself, which is (in my view) faintly ridiculous. I simply wish to point out that actions do have consequences, and the academic elite, which tends to talk only to itself, has, with narcissistic hubris, failed to see the barbarians at the gates, or, having seen them, dismisses them as irrelevant. ‘The Deplorables’, as Hillary Clinton called them, which is no way to win people to one’s point of view.