Faculty and Students at Ghent University are objecting to the university’s recent hiring of philosopher Nathan Cofnas.
Readers may recall Cofnas as the person who wrote on his blog that “In a meritocracy… Black people would disappear from virtually all high-ranking positions, with the exception of sports and entertainment,” or from the controversy regarding the publication of his article about group differences in intelligence (which led to the resignation of one of the journal’s editors), or from his contribution to a debate over how, exactly, Jews have managed to have such power and influence in politics and culture.
In 2024, Emmanuel College at Cambridge University cut its affiliation with Cofnas, who was a fellow at Cambridge at the time, a decision for which the self-described “race realist” is suing them.
Cofnas was recently hired into a temporary position at Ghent to work on a project run by philosophy professor Bouke de Vries (reportedly no stranger to the race science crowd, either).
According to the Brussels Times,
In an open letter, 45 philosophers from Ghent University called for Cofnas’ resignation, accusing him of promoting racist pseudoscience. “What Cofnas and his supporters call ‘racial realism’ is the idea that we must face the supposed reality that white people are simply superior to Black people,” the letter states. “But that is not reality. It is racism.” The signatories argue that Cofnas is not conducting legitimate academic research into race and intelligence but instead spreading pseudoscience. They urged the rector, vice-rector and the university’s board to respect the institution’s ethical code and “act accordingly”.
According to VRT News, Ghent rector Petra De Sutter responded by saying, in part,
I understand the outrage and concern. For many people, the statements referred to are hurtful and disturbing. They affect me too. As rector, I want to make it clear that we are not ignoring these signals. We will therefore continue to monitor the recruitment process within the applicable legal and institutional framework. Recruitment is a decision for the promoter, based on criteria including publication record and expertise, and is reviewed by the HR department. That is what happened and his appointment was approved. Dissenting opinions are allowed to exist and debate must take place at a university. It is primarily up to experts and fellow researchers to test ideas, criticise them and, where necessary, contradict them.
A number of scholars, led by the editors of The Journal of Controversial Ideas, Peter Singer (Princeton), Francesca Minerva (Milan), and Jeff McMahan (Oxford), have signed onto an open letter objecting to calls for the university to back out of its hiring of Cofnas. Here’s the text of the letter:
Two separate statements have recently been issued by members of Ghent University, in Belgium, calling on the university to rescind the appointment of Nathan Cofnas as a postdoctoral researcher. One claims that his views “violate the university’s code of ethics and are morally beneath contempt”.
We oppose this attack on academic freedom. While we are not endorsing any specific claims Cofnas has made, we believe that academics must be able to put forward controversial or provocative claims without fear of losing their employment. Of course, other academics should be free to criticise or repudiate those claims.
The statements mentioned above do not even attempt to engage with Cofnas’s empirical claims. Disagreements, whether about empirical claims, ethical principles, or the interpretation of the ethical code of a university, should be settled through free inquiry and open, civil discussion.
We commend Petra De Sutter, Rector of Ghent University, for her statement to the Belgian newspaper De Morgen, that “As a university, we have a responsibility to create space for debate, but also to ensure an environment where people feel heard and respected.”
We agree that creating space for debate is an essential element of a university, and that space for debate should not be closed unless this is a last resort to prevent a clear threat of lasting substantial harm.
The letter currently has over 120 signatures.
Related: Competent Referees for Controversial Ideas