I thought it would end up > 2500 when I saw our submission number at 2pm on Friday...😅

Thanks so much for having me today - grateful for all the useful comments and suggestions on the paper. It was nice being back!

Would be interesting to know to what extend this is a function of elite cues and media discourse.

Yes and they are free to do so, as President Kramer writes. But the leadership of the LSE is, in the end, the President and the School Management Committee (SMC).

Those policies include protected characteristics, e.g. gender identity and ethnicity.

Yes, I was mostly thinking about the university standing up for the right of faculty and students to express their (political) opinions on social or traditional media, on the street etc. We have an ethics code at the LSE and policies on bullying & harassment that I hope will be unaffected by this.

To be clear, by "here", I was referring to the LSE's statement on Ukraine that I quoted in the previous tweet, the topic of which was not hateful speech, but murderous actions by the Russian government.

I think it's important to engage with the arguments that are being made in favour of institutional neutrality at face value.

What this policy appears to do is to commit the LSE to perpetual silence where on some crucial issues, institutions that have a role to play in sustaining the liberal democratic order, should choose voice instead. (10)

But even if one were to agree with this opinion, instead of throwing out the scale, would it not be better to try and get the balance right in the future? (9)

The questions that President Kramer is raising in this interview are undeniably very difficult ones. I agree that there are voices within this institution and of course also more broadly in society and politics that think that universities have expressed too many opinions on too many issues. (8)

I find the justification that if even one person within our community were to take a different position, unpersuasive in those instances. (7)

What is at stake here is not hateful speech, but hateful and murderous actions. If applied as outlined, would this institutional policy mean that the LSE would choose silence if a future UK government were to establish concentration camps or dismantle democratic institutions? (6)

[...] We deplore the catastrophic impact of the war on so many, both within and outside our School community - our thoughts remain with all affected, or who may be in unsafe or difficult situations." (5)