It’s the final weekend for applications to Living Freedom Summer School, the annual residential event organised by Ideas Matter. The deadline for applications is next Tuesday, 26 May. If you doubted the importance of participating in this event – or need an incentive to forward this Substack and spread the word to as many young people as possible – then a snapshot of the state of freedom over the past week should be persuasive.

Take the gathering of thousands from around the UK who descended on London last weekend to demand their voices be heard and express concerns over broken borders and a loss of cultural identity. Whatever one’s view of the organisers or their politics at the Unite the Kingdom rally, Keir Starmer’s decision to label attendees as ‘peddling hatred and division, plain and simple’ goes way beyond expressing political disagreement and amounts to yet another attempt to silence the people’s views by labelling them bigots.

Meanwhile, the rally and attendees were subject to extraordinary levels of political scrutiny and policing designed to restrict freedom in several new ways. Eleven foreign speakers – including democratically elected or prospective politicians such Flemish MP Filip Dewinter, Polish MEP Dominik Tarczyński and Republican candidate Valentina Gomez – were barred from entering the UK to address the crowds. Moreover, live facial-recognition technology was deployed on a march for the first time, scanning attendees across central London under the justification of preventing disorder and identifying extremists.

Under the radar, another dangerous new development became clear. Police warned that both the Unite the Kingdom and the Nakba marches, taking place on the same day, would be subject to a condition that ‘the responsibility [rests] on the organiser as well as the speaker to stay within the law (on hate speech)’. Since when did we legislate for guilt by association on public demonstrations? Further, phrases such as ‘death to the IDF’ or ‘globalise the intifada’ could reportedly trigger charges arising from the Nakba march. The police even warned that photographs shared online from the demonstrations could potentially constitute hate speech, depending on the hashtags used or the placards visible in the background. On that basis, should we ban photographs in textbooks about pre-war Germany because vile messages might be on show?

The fact that so many Britons are now looking to Donald Trump’s America as a defender of free speech is itself a sign of how demoralised some people are about the possibilities of changing our own political culture. The Trump administration’s forthcoming freedom.gov anti-censorship portal is reportedly being flooded with British users, who make up the clear majority of visitors to the holding page. That should embarrass Britain’s political class.

The answer cannot simply be outsourcing the defence of our liberty to America. If freedom is to flourish here, Britons themselves will have to rebuild the culture and institutions capable of defending it.

At Living Freedom, we operate under the banner that ‘every generation must renew freedom for its own times’. There is no better place to start than by engaging in the brilliant programme of discussion and debate at this year’s Living Freedom Summer School. Get your application in NOW!

About Living Freedom Summer School

Join us from 9-11 July in central London for lectures, panel debates and workshops led by a brilliant line-up of thinkers, authors, critics and campaigners – including Frank Furedi, Ella Whelan, Nigel Biggar, Rosie Kay and Timandra Harkness. Topics range widely across contemporary issues related to freedom and free speech – from ‘What is a citizen?’ to ‘How to cultivate intellectual virtue?’, from narrative control to women’s freedom, from banning social media for under-16s to how far we should tolerate the intolerant.

Our heavily subsidised tickets cost just £50 (a saving of £450) and include meals and accommodation.

Apply now for Living Freedom Summer School 2026 using the button below.

APPLY FOR LIVING FREEDOM SUMMER SCHOOL

Subscribe now

Share

On Sunday 10 May, thousands of people headed to the Extinguish Antisemitism rally at the gates of Downing Street. As Jewish Chronicle columnist Stephen Pollard said, this was ‘the moment for the silent majority to find its voice’ in response to recent hatred, intimidation and violence against the Jewish community.

The best of the speeches clarified the challenges – and cheered the crowd. And yet a nagging feeling remained: this gathering could – and should – have been much bigger. The fact it wasn’t reflects, to some extent, the ongoing confusion over the Israel–Palestine conflict, not least over the fateful terrorist attack on 7 October 2023 at the Nova Music Festival. On that day, 411 young people lost their lives – the starting point of this latest chapter of territorial and sectarian conflict.

Thankfully, a major new exhibition is opening, giving a brilliant opportunity to demystify the events of 7 October. Having received lots of media coverage on its tour of major cities – including New York, LA, Buenos Aires and Berlin – the Nova Music Festival Exhibition opens in London this month. This is less about the wider conflict than a human story of young people, of varying nationalities, coming together through music. Via sound, visuals and personal testimony, it reveals the stories behind the headlines. Designed as a space for open discussion and thinking critically, it doesn’t shy away from issues such as extremism, resilience, media literacy and community cohesion.

With the help of Nova’s exhibition team, Living Freedom has organised a special gallery tour to take place on Tuesday 26 May at 6pm. The tour will be followed by short talks on the experience of the Nova festival and how to respond by building solidarity against antisemitism.

WE HAVE ARRANGED FREE ENTRY FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS ON THIS TOUR. To come on the tour, you must register in advance via the Living Freedom event page. Details of the Central London venue will be given out after registration.

This private tour is open to everyone aged 18 to 30 and to all alumni of Living Freedom Summer School.

In addition, we are delighted to welcome along paid subscribers to our Substack (sign up or upgrade below) and all our generous supporters who have given financial support to the scholarships programme for Living Freedom Summer School.

Subscribe now

Support a Summer School scholar

Share

The boundary between public and private life has become increasingly blurred – or, in fact, completely eroded. From the hyper-fixation on the private affairs of government officials and royals to the expansion of laws affecting our most personal relationships in the home, have we have seen the death of private life?

Concerns around privacy are often related to the power of tech-giants and social media, gaining and selling personal data. Many of the concerns over TikTok were originally rooted in the company’s selling of data to China. Now the Irish government is preparing to roll out comprehensive digital wallets for its citizens that ‘have digital versions of their birth cert, driving license, European health card, and other official documents’. These digital wallets are stored on their phones and used for age verification. With this, concern around government access to private data is growing, and free-speech advocates are pushing back on the ability of the state to track both public and private comments online.

But privacy has a much deeper meaning and higher value than online data. The ability to separate our public and private lives has historically been fundamental to the development of the self and intimacy. Privacy allows us to have a guarded space to openly air opinions and make mistakes, without the social judgement of wider society. This enables us to clarify our thoughts before putting them in the public realm, allowing us to be guided by our own consciences in public life.

Tiffany Jenkins argues that the establishment of privacy was foundational to the development of individual conscience and public autonomy. She explains that privacy is a protean concept, which shifts depending on its historical and cultural context. The origins of modern privacy can be traced as a consequence of the Reformation - when it was decreed that individuals were free to worship how they wish in private. The curation of an individual relationship with God led to open private reflection on dictated morals and social norms, and the ability for the self to decipher what was right or wrong.

In her lecture and her book, Strangers and Intimates, Tiffany highlights how the erosion of the private sphere has redefined the relationship between civil society and the state. Yet, the protected spheres, away from the tentacles of public institutions, are quickly eroding, as regulation by technocrats and law has attempted to manage relationships between individuals. Perhaps, most notably, this has expanded into the relationship between parents and children, as the politicised teachings of well-being and gender have weakened the authority of parents within the family home.

Culturally, the value of privacy has been hijacked; it is now seen as something only needed for those who are up to no good. But as social norms and collective values are weakening, it is increasingly difficult to come to collective consensus on the line between right and wrong. And as social norms have collapsed, we have become dependent on legal frameworks to manage behaviour, because we no longer trust our judgement. Yet, by sacrificing our privacy, are we surrendering our ability to develop our individual autonomy and decide matters of individual conscience for ourselves?

Watch Tiffany’s lecture from Living Freedom 2025 here:

Hopefully, you’ll be inspired to apply for this year’s summer school! Find out more about the event and how to apply on our Summer School 2026 page.

Share

Subscribe now

On Wednesday, the High Court upheld the University of Sussex’s appeal against the Office for Students (OfS), which had issued a record fine over the University’s failure to protect the freedom of Kathleen Stock to express gender-critical views.

The arduous story of campus cancel culture – and culture is the key term – began in 2021 after Stock resigned amid death threats and warnings from the police to not leave her home. Over three years later, the OfS fined Sussex £585,000 under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech Act) 2023, arguing Sussex’s EDI policy was flawed for potentially restricting lawful gender-critical speech. Yet the High Court held this alone was insufficient, claiming universities may limit lawful speech if the restriction is justified and proportionate.

Sussex have argued that they themselves did not fire Stock for her views – she resigned under the stress of cancellation, ostracism and reputational damage. This raises a key question we’ll explore at Living Freedom’s Summer School: are legal protections enough to defend freedom of speech? We’ll be asking whether the UK needs an equivalent of America’s First Amendment – and whether changing the law can counter a culture of ‘you can’t say that’ and ‘speech is violence’.

This acts as a timely reminder for why Living Freedom is so important: it’s not enough to ask government to intervene when free speech is violated. As Stock herself writes: ‘It is the moral crazes rippling periodically through universities that constitute the biggest threat to freedom of expression there.’ We must build a culture in which free speech is actively championed, especially among young people, so that environments shaped by caution, complaint and self-censorship give way to ones grounded in confidence, openness and genuine intellectual freedom.

If you can’t wait until this year’s Summer School, watch Lorcán Price’s lecture on hate speech from our 2025 Summer School below. The lecture is particularly relevant as he describes how culture altered the application of law regarding free speech in the European courts.

Another important lecture from the Living Freedom archive is ‘A Lecture Concerning Toleration’ by Arif Ahmed from 2022, which addresses the importance of culture.

Claire Fox, director of the Academy of Ideas, was on Talk this week with Ian Collins discussing the Sussex case and why we need a culture of free expression and a defence of academic freedom.

We’ve also linked to relevant articles below on the moral dilemmas facing free-speech advocates.

APPLY FOR LIVING FREEDOM SUMMER SCHOOL

Read on

The rewriting of campus history
Kathleen Stock, UnHerd, 1 May 2026

The High Court has rewarded Kathleen Stock’s persecutors
Freddie Attenborough, spiked, 30 April 2026

Reflections on the University of Sussex v Office for Students judgment
Ian Pace, Substack, 29 April 2026

Levi Pay (@soppystem), X, 1 May 2026

Subscribe now

Share

Last week, Brodie Mitchell was paid compensation by Royal Holloway University after being suspended for ‘alleged conduct that could be considered hate speech’. The suspension followed Mitchell comparing a pro-Palestine activist’s headscarf to a tea towel. In turn, Mitchell argued his university had behaved unlawfully after it subjected him to ‘unfair’ disciplinary measures over the petty ‘spat’.

We should be pleased Mitchell is now free to continue his studies. And we should also welcome the recent news that non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) have been scrapped after the government suffered repeated embarrassments in several high-profile arrests for speech deemed off-limits. The most notable case was that of writer and activist Graham Linehan, who was arrested last September by several armed police just after he touched down at Heathrow airport. His ‘offence’ was a social-media post: ‘If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.’ The Metropolitan Police announced the following month that no further action would be taken against him.

Yet we should be very wary of thinking that the use of hate-speech controls to constrain free expression is about to end anytime soon. Legislation entrenching ‘hate speech’ as an illegal practice is a relatively recent but still growing phenomenon globally, and raises many issues for those of us concerned to defend free speech.

Australia, for example, has introduced more new hate-speech laws after the Bondi Beach attack, defining offences based on ‘intent’ to cause hatred and whether conduct would lead a ‘reasonable’ person from that targeted group to fear harassment, intimidation, violence or for their safety. But who determines what a reasonable person might think? How does one define intimidation? Does stepping in against ‘hate’ toward targeted groups, rather than applying the law equally, lead to issues of ‘two tier’ justice?

It’s exactly these ‘two-tier’ fears that worry free-speech advocates in the UK in relation to the government’s official definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. Will this effectively reintroduce blasphemy laws in the UK specifically for those who criticise Islam?

Looked at in this light, the decision to back down from pursuing Brodie Mitchell further bucks the wider trend for growing speech restrictions. Many stem from the 1986 Public Order Act, which prohibits threatening or abusive speech aimed at inciting hatred based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

The most recent legislation, the Crime and Policing Bill, requires further scrutiny still as it goes even further. The new law would empower police to ask courts for ‘respect orders’ that can prohibit someone from doing ‘anything described in the order’ as long as the person ‘has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person’.

Last year at our Summer School, Lorcán Price, legal counsel for ADF UK, delivered a fascinating lecture titled: ‘History of hate: origins and evolution of hate-speech laws’. Watch it on our YouTube channel. And hopefully you’ll be inspired to apply for this year’s summer school! Find out more about the event and how to apply on our Summer School 2026 page.

Share

Subscribe now

In the UK, this week MPs voted against a social-media ban for under-16s for a second time. Nevertheless, prime minister Keir Starmer has demanded tougher action on internet safety by tech bosses. Digital curfews and time limits on apps are set to be trialled by 300 teenagers across the country. And the government is pushing ahead with a consultation into an under-16s ban, meaning there’s still a real possibility that restrictions on social-media platforms will be introduced in the UK.

Not surprisingly, experts, campaigners, parents and the public are divided on whether bans should be rolled out. So at Living Freedom Summer School we will debate ‘Should social media be banned for under 16s?’ (See details below for how to attend.)

On the one hand, social media is regularly blamed for causing harm to individuals, social fragmentation and political polarisation. With people aged between 18 and 24 now spending an average of six hours a day on social media, many worry about adverse impacts.

In the US, Kaley, a 20-year-old woman (known only by her first name to protect her privacy), won a lawsuit against Google’s YouTube and Meta by arguing that her childhood social-media use led to an addiction that damaged her mental health. With increased rates of anxiety and depression in teenagers, many are convinced time spent on screens must be controlled to curtail potential harms.

Others argue correlation is not the same as causation, and that other factors are at play. Not only is the evidence mixed on the causes of harms, but there are also considerbale benefits to using social media. What’s more, does relying on a blanket social-media ban risk shirking adult responsibility to socialise children - guiding young people to use social media in positive ways that help propel them forward rather than to hold them back?

The damage caused by lockdowns suggest that when we only think in terms of risk and safety, then we risk denying activities that contribute positively to resilience in the long run. And what of the danger of bringing in legislation which allows governments greater control of the information we can access and which opens the door to the state to manage our private conversations and even regulate children’s free time? Are parents right to worry this reduces parental autonomy, and also their authority to shape the teenage years of their own children?

Below, in the article ‘Social Media doesn’t have to undermine human agency’ written for Cutting Takes, Living Freedom coordinator Emma Gilland argues that to blame social media for young people’s alienation and mental health issues is an all too easy way to blame social problems on Big Tech.

FURTHER READING
Why I’ve changed my mind about banning social media for teenagers by Claire Fox and Stella O’Malley

Most Young Australians Successfully Evade the Country’s Social Media Ban by J.D. Tuccille

LIVING FREEDOM SUMMER SCHOOL 2026
Date: 9 - 11 July
Location: Westminster, London
Eligibility Criteria: open to anyone aged 18 to 30
Programme, information and to apply: click here.

Amplifying harm: are we run by algorithms?

Emma Gilland

There is no doubt that social media is a powerful tool. Freya India, a 26-year-old journalist from the UK who has just published her first book, GIRLS®, argues that internet platforms ‘prey on the insecurities’ of young girls, commodifying their misery, trapping them in endless cycles of comparison and immediate attention or gratification. And with the government launching a public consultation on social media bans for under-16s, these arguments have clearly taken hold across the UK.

Even though it is clear that social media platforms are designed to capture attention and exacerbate vulnerability, insecurity and isolation, to treat these as determinative to individual behaviour denies human agency, stripping individuals of the ability to overcome these challenges through regulation and self-control. The move to clamp down on social media, through bans and mass regulation by tech companies and external regulators, is setting a dangerous precedent. One that doesn’t trust people to harness the power of technology and the opportunities it gives us for knowledge, growth and time. Instead, it grants that power to the state.

Not only is the discourse of protection from big tech and technological developments being used to infantilise children, suggesting that they are incapable of managing the rapidly changing nature of information and communication; they are now being used to undermine the agency of adults too. The psychological ‘harms’ of social media, and the power of algorithms, are increasingly being used to account for the falling standard of political communication.

Social media has proliferated to amplify division. But it has proliferated in an already fragmenting society, where common values, social norms and communities were already disintegrating. Individuals who have long been desperate to belong to a group, or some collective endeavour, have moved to echo chambers to fill this void.

‘It has proliferated in an already fragmenting society, where common values, social norms and communities were already disintegrating. Individuals who have long been desperate to belong to a group, or some collective endeavour, have moved to echo chambers to fill this void.’

To read the full article go to Cutting Takes.

Subscribe now

Share

Ahead of Easter weekend, we are featuring one of the highlights from our YouTube archive of summer school talks. Sociologist and social commentator Frank Furedi delves into the meaning of freedom of conscience, exploring how this vital concept emerged and has evolved, and why it remains so important.

Many will recognise freedom of conscience as integral to ensuring every individual’s ability to act on their religious or faith-based beliefs. Just last week, a decision by the Finnish Supreme Court to convict Päivi Räsänen – a parliamentarian and former minister of the interior – for expressing her Christian views on homosexuality shows how fragile conscience-based freedoms have become.

Whether Christian street-preachers, controversies over praying in the vicinity of abortion services providers or public prayer gatherings such as the recent Open Iftar in Trafalgar Square, the extent to which expressing religious beliefs in public should be tolerated is much debated in many different contexts.

As this lecture explains, however, questions of conscience go far beyond the issue of expressing religious beliefs. For centuries, in religious and secular times alike, societies have wrestled with conflicts between inner life and external authority - and dilemmas as to how we should live in accordance with our inner-most thoughts and beliefs.

In recent decades, as boundaries between personal and political spheres have eroded, new threats to conscience-based freedoms have emerged. Public authorities increasingly colonise internal life, extinguishing the space for individuals to exercise moral reasoning and make judgements based on deeply held moral beliefs.

Ultimately, as this lecture argues, ‘tolerance creates the conditions for the free expressions of opinions, beliefs and behaviours associated with the exercise of individual conscience’. Today, however, debate rages over the extent to which we should tolerate what many judge to be intolerant ideas.

Along with many other tricky dilemmas, this is a topic that will be central to this year’s summer school, on 9-11 July in central London. So do make sure and apply now.

APPLY NOW

LIVING FREEDOM SUMMER SCHOOL 2026
Date: 9 - 11 July
Location: Westminster, London
Eligibility Criteria: open to anyone aged 18 to 30
Programme, information and to apply: click here.

Share

Subscribe now

Extremism on campus is back in the headlines. In the long shadow of October 7, one recent survey found half of students had heard slogans glorifying Hamas, Hezbollah or other proscribed groups, while 65 per cent reported teaching disrupted by protests. Some students describe threats and abuse, and referrals to the Prevent counter-extremism programme have gone up by 50 per cent in two years. After the recent revelation that one in five students refuse to live with a Jewish peer, one parliamentarian argued that anti-Semitism in universities has been ‘normalised’.

The Henry Jackson Society has identified dozens of universities hosting events mourning the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and campuses are ‘now used as platforms to spread extremist narratives’. Meanwhile, the government plans tighter oversight – including clamping down on ‘divisive content’ and plans to ‘strengthen monitoring’ of non-violent extremism. A Campus Cohesion Charter will help manage external speakers and events, and will risk-check free speech for signs of crossing into unlawful activity or support for terrorism.

Yet such moves pose real moral dilemmas for those who believe in free speech. After all, setting clearer expectations around conduct, respect and shared values across university life can easily spill over into wider restrictions on speech. How should we define extremism and should we be open to new constraints? Where do the boundaries lie between resisting intolerance and tolerating all views and ideas? Is ‘extremism’ being weaponised to undermine our freedoms?

To help us navigate our way through the issues, we’ll be joined by Michael Ben-Gad – professor of economics at City St George’s, University of London – who himself faced protests by students, calling him a Nazi, threatening violence and demanding his dismissal. Join us to work out how we defend liberty in an age increasingly inclined to police ideas.

Doors open at 6.15pm, with the discussion running from 6.30pm-8.30pm.

Subscribe now

SPEAKER
Michael Ben-Gad
professor of economics; co-convenor, Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF) at City St George’s, University of London

CHAIR
Alastair Donald
convenor, Living Freedom

READINGS
The targeting of Israeli Professor Michael Ben-Gad: Britain’s academic freedom crisis
Professor Ian Pace, Jewish Chronicle, 21 November 2025

Students given stronger protections against extremism on campus
Department for Education and Bridget Phillipson MP, 8 March 2026

What the government’s Social Cohesion Action Plan means for universities and students
Jim Dickinson, WONKHE, 9 March 2026

REGISTRATION
This event is free. Please register here. Venue details will be sent on registration.

Share

Some fear that a label once reserved for describing a genuine fringe is being casually applied to almost any dissenting view. As the government claims new powers to monitor and restrict ‘extremism’ – from tighter speech controls to deeper oversight of universities – a central question emerges for this year’s Living Freedom Summer School: in trying to stamp out ‘extremism’, do we risk eroding the very freedoms that a confident society is meant to defend?

Recently, Living Freedom events coordinator Jake Weston was joined by several participants from last year’s summer school for the Battle of Ideas North debate, ‘Disaffected youth: are young people becoming more extreme?’ Below, Jake reflects on the discussion – and you can watch the full debate on YouTube.

Finally, a reminder. Get your applications in NOW to attend the summer school this year.

LIVING FREEDOM SUMMER SCHOOL 2026
Date: 9 - 11 July
Location: Westminster, London
Eligibility Criteria: open to anyone aged 18 to 30
Programme, information and to apply: click here.

Alastair Donald
convenor, Living Freedom

What does it mean to be extreme? In our polarised age, ‘extreme’ is a term used freely. As Maeve Halligan, co-founder of the Cambridge University Society of Women, explained, in certain circles it can be considered ‘extreme’ to hold gender-critical views, be sceptical about mass migration or be pro-Israel. Conversely, in other circles, identity politics, climate activism and calling to defund the police may likewise be understood as extreme.

Extremism has always been relative. But what’s perhaps new about today is the practice of moralising your opponents’ views. They aren’t just wrong, they’re bad – perhaps even potentially dangerous. Yet when politics is debated through a lens of moral righteousness, what happens to the ability to persuade and to be persuaded?

One question we discussed is why today’s youth may appear to be ‘more extreme’, with the conversation inevitably touching on the influence of universities. Is progressive campus culture self-radicalising? Is there moral one-upmanship at work, with students competing to signal virtue and pushing each other further? Could this explain the ratchet effect – from death threats against Reform UK society founders to one in five students saying they’d feel uncomfortable living with a Jewish peer.

Many claims of extremism rest on headline-grabbing polls. But here, too, we might be sceptical. Does aligning with the Greens necessarily equate to rising extreme views? And do 25 per cent of young women truly believe in the legalisation of drugs and prostitution? Maybe we are more Generation Conform than Generation Extreme. As universities preach a monolithic progressive line, then perhaps the problem is a less intellectually rich and stimulating environment. The erstwhile diaspora of viewpoints found across society – in churches, the workplace or local communities – need new ways of articulating themselves and new space to breathe. Notably, this is one of the tasks of Living Freedom Summer School.

Sebastian Moore, North West chair of the Social Democratic Party, flipped the question: are young people extreme enough? For young people today, life may be easier technologically, but much harder materially. In the 1980s, homes cost around three times average earnings; today, comparable access demands salaries above £100,000. Saddled with debt and facing a bleak jobs market, today’s ‘Generation Rent’ arguably has ample reason for disaffection.

One of the most common explanations for youth radicalisation is being susceptible to misinformation. However, as I pointed out, studies show young people are fairly deft at identifying misinformation and sceptical of what they read, whether online or from traditionally reliable sources. Consequently, current calls to restrict access to social media are unlikely to be tackle the underlying causes of youth extremism, but will certainly badly impact on our ability to access information and engage in debate.

For Georgina Mumford, content producer and writer at spiked, the problem may be better located in how we are raised. She identified an odd dichotomy: constantly asking for affirmation of our feelings whilst being steered away from difficult challenges and independence – effectively leaving young people devoid of resilience. We were taught to ‘be yourself’ and that the world would deeply care about us, only to find out that that the ‘real world’ is quite a difficult and challenging place. That world is not organised around our own feelings, but it is one we need to engage with and shape.

A final question is what has happened to any common national identity – a factor that often provided some common ground for how we grow and develop. Over 80 per cent of young people in 2004 were proud to be British – less than 50 per cent are today. Within one generation, a positive national story has dissipated. So, too, has shared faith and, in extreme cases, shared language. How can young people develop a common sense of attachment when there’s nothing positive to belong to? Do we need to reinvent our national story so people can feel a part of it?

Perhaps this provides some of the explanation as to why some young people gravitate to more extreme views. While Palestine or climate activism are causes largely beyond our control, perhaps we would be better to refocus on the tangible pressures faced by our generation at home: graduate taxes or rising youth unemployment, never mind asserting both our right to speak freely and our moral autonomy. We have real cause for disaffection – and for action. A sensible starting point is Living Freedom: a forum to test ideas seriously and speak for ourselves, rather than be ventriloquised by the loudest fringes of our generation.

Jake Weston is Living Freedom event coordinator.

Share

Living Freedom Summer School is our flagship event, offering a fantastic opportunity to explore ideas and debate ideals as they relate to the past, present and future of freedom. The three-day residential school takes place in central London on 9-11 July and is open to anyone aged 18 to 30, based in the UK or beyond.

Successful applicants will be receive a Living Freedom Scholarship award that covers 90 per cent of fees. (Scholars will pay just £50, reduced from the full cost of £500.) The deadline for applications is 26 May 2026. A review panel will award 50 scholarships.

OVERVIEW

‘We have it in our power to begin the world over again.’ Published 250 years ago, Common Sense by Thomas Paine was more than a rabble-rousing pamphlet designed to stiffen American spines and hasten a revolutionary break with Britain. In lucid, often incendiary prose, Paine distilled his demand for sovereignty and equality into a popular, democratic call to arms. Many arguments unleashed then – over liberty, authority and rights – still reverberate today.

Anniversaries force us not merely to revisit history but to take stock of our own febrile age, where liberty is again up for grabs. Living Freedom summer school carves out space for serious argument on the defining questions of our time – a forum to think boldly, debate openly and test ideas.

250 years on from independence, much has changed, but some fault-lines look strangely familiar. The cry ‘All men are created equal’ once ignited a revolution. Today, critics argue that EDI (equality, diversity and inclusion) orthodoxies and equality law chill speech and corrode equal treatment. Juries once protected dissenters from politicised charges of seditious libel. Yet, when juries acquit activists from groups such as Palestine Action, they are denounced as going rogue, even as governments curtail jury trials in the name of improving justice. What is the principled response?

Free speech remains the frontline. The printing press and pamphlet wars have given way to smartphones and social media – a new public square that elites itch to regulate. How should defenders of liberty respond to initiatives aimed at ‘controlling the narrative’ such as the so-called European Democracy Shield? Is Washington truly a champion of digital freedom when its state agencies regularly lean on companies like Google, Meta and Discord?

Perhaps the biggest challenge is getting to grips with a shifting political landscape of freedom. The decline of ideologically motivated parties means that culture and the pre-political realm are where politics plays out and where many arguments around freedom arise – debates over community, traditions and identity, flag, family and faith. In an era of culture wars, sectarianism and insurgent populism, how do we restate the case for freedom – clearly, confidently and without apology?

SCHOLARSHIPS

The cost of providing a place at the summer school is £500. This includes accommodation in central London and attending the annual Living Freedom dinner.

However, attendees will pay just £50, a massive reduction of £450.

This is because Living Freedom uses a targeted scholarships programme funded by our donors and partners, which will ensure that we can select attendees on merit, irrespective of their financial circumstances.

If you would like to make a donation to support a scholar, find out more here.

PROVISIONAL PROGRAMME

PLENARY LECTURES

• Island of strangers: what is a citizen?

• Women’s freedom: safety versus liberation

• Populism: threat to liberty or demand for freedom?

• Generation Fragile? Growing up in the Culture Wars

• Expert-led parenting to fertility support: should the state intervene in family life?

• Controlling the narrative: European Democracy Shield case study

• America: great bulwark of liberty?

TALKS, DEBATES AND WORKSHOPS

• Should social media be banned for under 16s?

• Woke galleries to diversity casting: disentangling art and politics

• Antisemitism to anti-Zionism: new challenges to free speech on campus

• Restricting jury trials: an assault on liberty?

• Activist staff to office speech police: EDI in the workplace

• Should we scrap the Equality Act?

• Nation, national community, national interests

• What the papers say – reviews workshops

LITERATURE AND LIBERTY: TALKS AND SEMINARS

• Aristotle: The Politics

• David Szalay: Flesh

SPEAKERS INCLUDE

Dolan Cummings writer and novelist; co-director, Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life
Frank Furedi sociologist and social commentator
Timandra Harkness author, Technology is Not the Problem
Ellie Lee co-author, Growing up in the Culture Wars
Phil Mullan author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents
Ella Nixon curator, writer and art historian
Jacob Reynolds head of policy, MCC Brussels
Zoe Strimpel author, Good Slut: how money, sex and power set women free
Maren Thom co-host, Performance Anxiety podcast
Maya Thomas legal and policy officer, Big Brother Watch
Ella Whelan journalist; co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival

HOW TO APPLY

Visit the Living Freedom Summer School 2026 page on our website to fill in the application form.

SUPPORTED BY

ENQUIRIES

Should you need further information, please email the Living Freedom convenor, Alastair Donald, at alastair@ideasmatter.org.uk or call +44 (0)20 7269 9234.

Share

Subscribe now

Here, Jake Weston reflects on the discussion.

Building on our session at the Battle of Ideas festival, ‘Right-wing boys and progressive girls: war of the sexes?’ (see video links at bottom), Living Freedom hosted, ‘Battle of the sexes: the new political divide’ to further explore the issue.

We started with Nicholas Stephenson – the author of Onward’s report, Ballot of the Sexes – who reminded both the panel and the audience that the divide is international. In fact, he argued, it is even more intense in Germany, the US and South Korea.

Much of the data cited by Nicholas supported conclusions made at our previous event: that social media allows for groups to disengage from one and another, as they increasingly occupy their own political spaces. Engagement between the two is limited, as not only do women and men have differing opinions on key issues, but they also differ on what is considered a key issue.

Yet, similarity between the sexes is found in a shared dissatisfaction with the status quo, a conclusion which I agreed was rational in the context of the ever-worsening economic prospectives of Gen Z. I tried to diagnose the gender divide by drawing from my own experience at university. I argued that academia overwhelmingly leans to the left, creating a culture in which certain political beliefs are normalised whilst others are marginalised. Voting Green then reflects conformity, whereas voting Reform is rebellious.

As evidence, one only needs to look to recent campus controversies, where extreme progressive positions were openly celebrated, whereas conservative groups often meet in secret.

Finally, I returned to why, explaining that as women make up a greater share of university students - particularly in the humanities - and score higher on agreeableness, they are more likely to align with dominant campus values rather than dissent from the status quo. If we can restore universities to genuine intellectual openness, then I believe we can go a long way in healing the gendered political divide.

Poppy Coburn, although wary of how often social media is used to explain political phenomena, thought that in this case, it may be a key source of tension exacerbating the divide. She reflected on the social context, as women have not historically been more left-wing than men. So, the gender divide can only be explained by something new.

Politics now operates in different spaces, making ideological segregation easy. Individuals can control what information they consume and protect themselves from dissenting views. As women and men now even use different platforms to consume political content, they consume alternate media from each other, widening what may have been marginal differences in opinion.

To heal the divide, Poppy raised whether marriage would bring people together – as the sexes will have to compromise politically to find a partner. Audience members agreed with this sentiment to some extent, but voiced concern with finding a partner themselves in a polarised dating ‘market’.

Emma Gilland introduced a wider sociological lens, drawing attention to the economic, cultural and relational shifts reshaping how men and women interact. She pointed to the decline in relationship and marriage rates – first observed dramatically in South Korea and now echoed across the West – as evidence of a broader transformation in the relationship between men and women.

Changes in the labour market, alongside rising individualism, have altered the foundations of partnership. With women no longer economically dependent on men, expectations around communication, emotional labour and the quality of relationships have increased. What sociologists call the search for ‘pure love’ has made modern relationships feel more precarious, more demanding and ultimately more difficult to form.

In this climate of insecurity – and with young people increasingly focused on financial stability and self-development – fewer Gen Z men and women are entering long-term relationships. With intimate connection breaking down, opportunities for genuine dialogue between the sexes are declining, deepening political misunderstandings and further fuelling the divide.

Other strong audience contributions throughout the evening centred around female dissatisfaction, how the return of Christianity could impact men and women differently, and questioned how much of an impact politics really has in a dating pool which is much less political than those who attend Living Freedom events.

VIDEOS

At the Battle of Ideas, our Living Freedom panel – ‘Right-wing boys and progressive girls: war of the sexes?’ - featured three other speakers with their own diagnoses. Watch clips using the links below.

Elliot Bewick, host of The Next Generation:

Georgina Mumford, a writer at spiked:

Chloe Combi, author of Generation Z, a speaker and columnist:

LIVING FREEDOM XMAS BASH BALLOON DEBATE 2025

Thursday 11 December, 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm, Westminster

All under 30s are invited to our annual Christmas party – a balloon debate posing the question: ‘What is the best cultural representation of freedom?’

We are delighted to be joined by…

· Ada Akpala, writer and commentator; head of content, The Equiano Project
defending nudity in art and beyond.

· Freddie Attenborough, research manager, Committee for Academic Freedom
defending the work of playwright and writer Joe Orton.

· Sonia Gallego, reporter, Al Jazeera English
defending tbc

· Reem Ibrahim, communications officer, Institute of Economic Affairs
defending Hamilton: An American Musical

· Jasper Robbins, writer; alumnus, Living Freedom; history and politics student
defending Top Gear (2002-2015)

· Kevin Rooney, religion, philosophy and ethics teacher; editor, irishborderpoll.com
defending Alan Bennett’s The History Boys

· Jake Weston, project assistant, Academy of Ideas
defending gambling culture

HOST
Alastair Donald, convenor, Living Freedom

The event is free, but you need to register in advance. Sign up here.

Subscribe now

Share

spiked has released a blockbuster documentary, on the rise of the British speech police.

Featuring Free Speech Union general secretary Toby Young and Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson, it tells the stories of three Brits who were investigated, arrested and even prosecuted for posting ‘offensive’ things on social media. For more details see Think Before You Post.

The premiere will take place at the Rich Mix cinema in London (near Liverpool Street) on Tuesday 25 November. There will be a screening at 7pm, followed by a Q&A with cast and crew.

spiked have kindly donated 15 free tickets to Living Freedom alumni for those who can commit to attending. Offer closes Tuesday 18 November. Tickets will be allocated on a first come, first served basis. Anyone who has attended our summer schools or forum events (including having registered for our up and coming forums) is welcome to apply.

Please email jake@ideasmatter.org.uk to reserve your place.

Share

London Freedom Forum, Monday 24 November, 6.30pm, Westminster

Today, over half a century on from the radical emergence of equality movements in 1960s, the growth of an ideological and social splintering between the sexes is frequently making headlines.

A recent report by Onward notes that, in line with international trends, the divide between men and women in the UK is growing, most evident amongst Gen Z. In the 2024 General Election, young women moved leftwards while young men drifted significantly to the right, with the former almost twice as likely to vote Green as young men, who in turn were twice as likely to vote Reform as young women. With Gen Z opting for more radical parties, political polarisation is deepening – and following gendered lines.

Perhaps the problem is social media, with young women tending to use TikTok and Instagram while young men tend towards X and podcasts like The Joe Rogan Experience. Socially, Gen Z men and women are also said to be drifting apart. Women now outperform men in education, being more likely to attend university and get higher-paying jobs in their twenties. However, young women are also reportedly more stressed, more lonely and less satisfied with life, while fears over the ‘manosphere’ and toxic masculinity go hand-in-hand with a hardening sense of cultural antagonism and alienation between the sexes.

Some say lower levels of intimacy and sexual activity in Gen Z reflect a loss of emotional connection and long-term commitment. Others point to young men increasingly viewing themselves as ‘left behind’ and more resentful of feminism, equal rights and woke policies that they perceive as discriminating against them. Are political divisions ruining young people’s love lives, too?

Is this divide as alarming or deep-rooted as it seems? Could Gen Z’s polarisation be a passing phase? Or is the growing divide around the sexes now an issue to take seriously – perhaps in ways that class or racial divides might once have been addressed in the past? And when previously ideology or shared social experiences were used to overcome these divisions, what is the route forwards to find common ground between the sexes today?

SPEAKERS
Poppy Coburn
acting deputy comment editor, Daily Telegraph

Emma Gilland
project assistant, Ideas Matter; author, The Corona Generation

Nicholas Stephenson
researcher and data analyst, Onward

Jake Weston
project assistant, Academy of Ideas

REGISTER
This event is free, but please register using the form on our event page.

Living Freedom Xmas Bash Balloon Debate 2025

Thursday 11 December 2025, 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm, Westminster

We would like to invite you to join us for a drink, some good company and a fun Xmas balloon debate.

What is the greatest representation of freedom in culture?

A panel of valiant freedom lovers will seek to convince you of their choice, whether a work of art or literature, a film, opera, play or song.

Each contestant will have just three minutes to present their case, followed by a round of questions from the audience. Then there is a vote, and the top three will be given an additional one minute to convince you to back their choice.

Which cultural representation of freedom – and its defender – deserves to stay in the balloon? You decide!

HOST
Alastair Donald
convenor, Living Freedom

This invitation-only gathering will take place in Westminster. We’ll send the venue details after you register.

What: Living Freedom Xmas Balloon Debate
When: Thursday 11 December 2025, 7:00pm-9.00pm
Where: Westminster
Entrance: Free
Register: use the form on our event page.

Panellists to be announced soon.

Subscribe now

There are also a series of events in the next few weeks hosted by Living Freedom fellows.

Battle Book Club: John Boyne’s Water

Wednesday 12 November, 7pm, via Zoom

John Boyne’s Elements quartet—Water, Earth, Fire, and Air—was released as one volume but controversy over his gender-critical views led to backlash and the suspension of the Polari Prize. Our Book Club invites discussion on his writing instead, focusing on Water, where Vanessa Carvin, hiding from her past and her husband’s crimes, wrestles with guilt, morality, and whether it’s possible to wash away complicity and begin again, simply by changing your name.

The event will be hosted online from 7.00pm-8.30pm on Zoom. Hosted by Emma Gilland with an introduction from Ella Whelan. The event is free but please register via Eventbrite.

Together’s 4^th Anniversary event

Sunday 16 November, Novotel London West, Hammersmith

Together is celebrating four years of fighting to take back democracy and advocating for a better future through freedom, free speech, public and accountability.

Speakers include: Baron Maurice Glasman, Lisa McKenzie, Laila Cunningham, Lord Tony Sewell CBE, Allison Pearson.

Under 25s get a free ticket with code: LIVINGFREEDOM

Book tickets here.

The Covid Lockdowns: Challenges, Dilemmas, and Trade-offs – free event 

Wednesday 19 November

Our friends at the Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) are hosting a free public seminar at Worcester College, Oxford, on Wednesday 19 November, examining the trade-offs that defined Britain’s response to the biggest public health crisis in modern history.

The discussion will bring together Professor Sunetra Gupta (Oxford University), Professor Hugh Montgomery (UCL), historian Toby Green (King’s College London) and medical historian Mark Honigsbaum (City, University of London), with molecular biologist Dr Güneş Taylor (Francis Crick Institute) as the chair.

Book your free ticket here.

Share

Battle of Ideas, the FREE SPEECH festival that takes place this coming weekend – 18 & 19 October in Westminster – is THE opportunity for liberty lovers to discuss the big challenges for freedom today. At a time when university campuses and online discussions can be polarised and censorious, this is the chance for all young people to come along and to listen, think and have your say on many topical, challenging issues of the day.

This year, the festival celebrates its 20^th anniversary. With 400 speakers speaking on over 100 panels, this is the space to discuss all the pressing issues of our time, whether in politics, science, the arts, women’s freedom or the culture wars. As my fellow convenor Ella Whelan and I note in Why we need Battle of Ideas festival 2025: ‘It’s a space of solidarity – but it’s not a safe space, free from argument. We welcome everyone who agrees we are grown up enough to disagree, who believes that hearing conflicting ideas is the lifeblood of real democracy and political change.’

Living Freedom will be at the heart of the action having produced debates on a wide range of topics – from the war of the sexes to burqa bans, the tyranny of campus wellbeing to online dating, the rise of snitch culture to downwardly mobile graduates. And many of our supporters and alumni are directly involved. So come along and debate. And don’t forget to come and find our stall at the Ideas Market.

Tickets are still available, with big discounts for students and those under 30 working in STEM fields – just £30 for an entire weekend. You can find all the details and secure your place on the Battle of Ideas tickets page.

See you there!

Alastair Donald
convenor, Living Freedom

BUY TICKETS NOW

LIVING FREEDOM AT BATTLE OF IDEAS 2025

Saturday 18 October, 10:15—11:45
FREE SPEECH IN TRUMP’S AMERICA
Speaking at this year’s Munich Security Conference, the US vice president, JD Vance, declared: ‘Free speech, I fear, is in retreat’, vowing that the Trump Administration would ‘fight to defend it’. Is the Trump Administration fulfilling this promise? Or is it riddled with hypocrisy?

SPEAKERS:
Simon Hankinson, Dr Cheryl Hudson, Dr James Orr, Tom Slater, Nadine Strossen
CHAIR:
Alastair Donald

Saturday 18 October, 12:15—13:30
FACE TIME? THE PROS AND CONS OF BURQA BANS
When Sarah Pochin used her first parliamentary question as a new Reform Party MP to ask about banning the burqa, she reignited a longstanding, smouldering issue. The principle of freedom is at stake – especially women’s freedom – to choose their dress, faith and identity.

SPEAKERS:
Josie Appleton, Faika El-Nagashi, Khadija Khan, Ralph Leonard
CHAIR:
Dr James Panton

Saturday 18 October, 12:15—13:30
LETTERS ON LIBERTY: THE TYRANNY OF CAMPUS WELLBEING  
Since 2020, Letters on Liberty has reimagined freedom through bold debate. In The Tyranny of Campus Wellbeing, Felice Basbøll argues that prioritising wellbeing risks censoring disagreement and avoiding life’s hardships – leaving young people ill-equipped for adversity. Has mental-health awareness gone too far?

SPEAKERS:
Felice Basbøll, Dr Jennifer Cunningham, Maeve Halligan, Ed Rennie, Eloise Schultz
CHAIR:
Dr Ruth Mieschbuehler

Sunday 19 October, 10:00—10:45
ONLINE DATING: THE END OF ROMANCE?
Tinder, Grindr, Bumble, Hinge, Feeld – whatever your dating preference, there’s an app for it. Gone are the days of hitting the town in hopes of catching someone’s eyes in a busy bar. Is love just a tap away – or slipping through our fingers?

SPEAKERS:
Elliot Bewick, Ella Dorn, Ralph Leonard
CHAIR:
Beverley Marshall

Sunday 19 October, 11:00—12:30
FROM HARVARD TO SUSSEX: SHOULD THE STATE PUNISH UNIVERSITIES?
Long the epicentre of ‘woke ideology’, the university sector has not been a stranger to censorship over the past couple of years. Are government interventions into universities a necessary measure, or do they risk threatening institutional independence and academic freedom?

SPEAKERS:
Felice Basbøll, Dennis Hayes, John Maier, Prof Jo Phoenix, Prof Abhishek Saha
CHAIR:
Alastair Donald

Sunday 19 October, 12:45—13:30
RIGHT-WING BOYS AND PROGRESSIVE GIRLS: WAR OF THE SEXES?
Has progressive politics, which took a vigilant stance fighting against misogyny and sexual harassment, left young men feeling left behind? And is this trend set to stick or, as recent polling suggests, will Reform gain support from women? With political polarisation looming large, can Gen Z build relationships across the gendered divide? Can young women and men be compatible if they have lost their shared morals and values?

SPEAKERS:
Elliot Bewick, Chloe Combi, Georgina Mumford
CHAIR:
Emma Gilland

Sunday 19 October, 15:45—17:00
SHOULD WE ‘DOGE’ UNIVERSITY RESEARCH?
With the rise of ideologically skewed or frivolous research, some argue that an intellectual rot is dominating some university research fields. Others are more worried about the increasing political oversight and distortion of research by ideology. Has academic research lost public trust by prioritising ideological conformity over intellectual rigour?

SPEAKERS:
Dr Jennie Bristow, Ella Dorn, Dr Pamela Paresky, Edward Skidelsky
CHAIR:
Timandra Harkness

Sunday 19 October, 13:45—15:15
THE RISE OF SNITCH CULTURE
In an era of WhatsApp groups, screenshots and the potential for things to go ‘viral’ breaching someone’s privacy is no longer seen as an immoral act. Social media has broken the trust that some things will be kept private. In a world where people’s intimate lives and thoughts can be shared worldwide at the touch of a button, is it possible to maintain both public and private lives? Can we encourage the young to trust each other if snitch culture is normalised?

SPEAKERS:
Sabrina Esses, Stani Huepfl, Rosie Kay, Fraser Myers, Connie Shaw
CHAIR:
Dr Tiffany Jenkins

Sunday 19 October, 17:15—18:30
EUROPE’S FREE-SPEECH CRISIS: HYPE OR REALITY?
Earlier this year, JD Vance warned that European failings on free speech and democracy are not down to Russia, China or any other external actors but a product of ‘the threat from within’. Have Europeans given up on the idea that bad ideas can be defeated by better ideas, rather than bans? Can Europe rediscover the values of tolerance and free speech as the foundation of a democratic society?

SPEAKERS:
Dr Norman Lewis, John McGuirk, Jacob Mchangama, Dr Lola Salem
CHAIR:
Alastair Donald

Sunday 19 October, 17:15—18:30
ERA OF THE DOWNWARDLY MOBILE GRADUATE?
As graduate students are finding it increasingly difficult to find jobs in an over-saturated market, concern arises at the new political threat of the ‘downwardly mobile graduate’. Burdened by debt, underemployed and politically disillusioned, will this new demographic turn on the parties who sold them the dream?

SPEAKERS:
Poppy Coburn, Tom Collyer, Nick Hillman, Dr Linda Murdoch, Tallulah Sutton
CHAIR:
Toby Marshall

Share

Subscribe now

No less important are developments in the world of culture. The summer school took place against a backdrop of demands that anti-Israel rappers Kneecap should be banned from playing Glastonbury. This week, as noted by Living Freedom speaker Rob Lyons, we have seen Jewish acts banished from Edinburgh festival. As discussed on the Arts First podcast, this is part of a growing trend for artists to experience antisemitism through cancellation. In the recently published Afraid to Speak Freely, campaigners Freedom in the Arts exposed the growing climate of fear, censorship, and ideological conformity in the arts.

Our summer school took place in a venue whose rich history includes its own artistic controversy that generated demands for censorship. 55 Broadway, the iconic Art Deco building at St James’s Park is currently awaiting redevelopment by Blue Orchid Hospitality. But almost a century ago, controversy was inflamed by the commission of two public sculptures, Day and Night, by Jacob Epstein (1880-1959), which challenged the then accepted boundaries of public art.

Today, intolerance and accompanying demands for censorship often revolve around issues of identity. But as the writer and curator Ella Nixon explained at Living Freedom, a century ago it was questions of morality and accompanying issues of aesthetic taste that so exercised opponents of these sculptures.

Today in the first of a series based on discussions at the summer school, we feature an adapted version of Ella’s talk. And we highly recommend you visit and subscribe to Ella’s Substack.

Alastair Donald, convenor, Living Freedom

Scandalous public sculpture in interwar London

Ella Nixon

Look up from the pavements of London and quite often your eyes will catch a work of art, hidden in public sight.

Nestled behind Green Park and rising atop the entranceway to St James’s Park tube station, the iconic Art Deco 55 Broadway building is no exception in this regard. Both its architecture and sculptural flourishes are paeans of modernist design. The building itself was constructed between 1927 and 1929 as the headquarters for Underground Electric Railways Company of London (now the London Underground). Architect Charles Holden (1875-1960) commissioned artists — including Henry Moore and Eric Gill — to produce eight sculptures that would sit at a high level to reference the ancient Greek Tower of the Winds in Athens. However, public attention focused on the work of Jacob Epstein (1880-1959), who had been commissioned to produce two additional sculptures to occupy a lower flank of the building. Day (1929) depicts a sinister patriarch surrounding a naked young boy, whilst Night (1929) portrays a dying son laid across a woman’s lap. The former of these two sculptures inflamed public controversy.

Why does contemporary art provoke controversy?

Contemporary implies the present, and the term ‘art’ implies value. Thus, contemporary art is a declaration about current standards of worth. Retrospective vision makes it much easier to identify which artworks pushed boundaries and became genre defining. Until then, disputes over what constitutes ‘art’ and ‘not art’ bubble under the feet of working artists.

Epstein was no stranger to controversy. Born in the US in 1880, he spent time in Paris before moving to London in 1907, where he settled and spent most of his life. In conventional histories of British art, his name is held in esteem similar to that of Henry Moore (1898-1986) and Barbara Hepworth (1903-1975), two other prominent British sculptors. His renown is largely associated with the financial success eminent from his over one-hundred cast bronze busts, which populate public galleries across the country: for example, Esther (1930), on display at the nearby Tate Britain. Busts provided security, whilst his more avant-garde ideas were tested in carved public sculptures.

Day and Night (1929) were unveiled in 1929 to an audience that found the sculptures so shocking that a campaign ensued to have them removed. To modern eyes, why might this be the case?

Most glaring when looking at Day is the flagrant exposure of male genitalia. Nudity in art has always invited censorious eyes. Think to classical sculptures of men and women, whose pudenda are oftentimes concealed by delicately placed carved leaves. Not long before the Broadway House commission, Epstein had already sparked controversy in 1907 for creating 18 nude sculptures for what was the British Medical Association Building (BMA) on the Strand (now Zimbabwe House). Commissioned to pay homage to the great men of medicine, Epstein instead installed large naked figures in a public space. The South London Press reported on 26 June 1908:

Father Vaughan, referring to the figures on the front of the British Medical Association's offices in the Strand, said he was sorry to say there were those who advocated the erection of certain statuary which would desecrate public buildings in the highways.

They were all entitled to hold their own opinions about the nude in art, but let them keep the nude in its proper place, where it would not appeal to the more vicious in human nature.

Let them keep such statuary in their art galleries and museums, or where people had to go out of their way to find it.

Like the BMA commissions, the public display of nudity represented on 55 Broadway invited criticism. However, Day hit another nerve altogether due to accusations of paedophilic imagery, in that a naked boy stands at the lap of an adult figure.

Indictments of immorality quickly followed its unveiling. A contemporary commentator, the classical archaeologist Percy Gardner, felt that the sculptures lacked ‘morality’. Some senior London Underground staff even resigned in protest. These reactions can be interpreted in light of the social role attributed to public sculpture. For Charles Jagger (1885-1934) — another recipient of public commissions across London, including the Royal Artillery Memorial at Hyde Park Corner (1921) —sculpture had a definite social role in that it portrayed ‘the peoples, customs and great achievements of its time’. In this context, what message did Day convey?

It’s clear that some members of the public found the sculpture an insult. Many criticisms concerned the length of the boy’s genitalia, leading Epstein to shorten the penis by an inch. By most accounts, this slight adjustment calmed the public furore. Specifics aside, for Epstein the depiction of nudity was a means to reach a universal truth. Primitive figures represented mankind in noble and heroic form. Study in Paris in the 1900s had sparked his appreciation of Indian and West African art traditions – penned ‘primitive’ and seen in the work of Picasso. His move to London in 1907 saw him develop an active interest in the antiquities at the British Museum, especially the African, Greek and Ancient Egyptian galleries.

Epstein found beauty in so-called primitive sculpture, whilst some critics expressed outrage at their perceived ugliness. For such critics, these issues spanned wider than purely aesthetic taste and formal qualities. The hegemony of Greco-Roman tradition — a line that had descended over centuries from the Italian Renaissance, including its ideal standards of proportion and beauty — had been directly attacked and corroded by his non-European influences, in what constituted an insult to Western culture. On display in a public place, the sculptures thereby raise questions about the political repercussions of artistic taste.

Conflictual opinions over the sculptures represent different stakeholders, each with set ideas about which artistic standards to aspire towards. These debates continue into the present day, and can be seen played out in discussions pertaining to architecture and the programming and acquisition strategies of public galleries. Endorsed by state funds, key stakeholders ultimately elevate some artistic standards over others, and thereby feed notions of value to the envisaged public.

One prominent example of how these processes play out at the governmental level was the appointment and subsequent sacking of the philosopher Roger Scruton (1944-2020) as the chairman of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission in the UK (2019-2020). His conservative writings provide insight into how so-called ‘ugly’ public art might be judged as immoral. Scruton believed that modern architecture – its architectural ornaments and sculptural flourishes – expresses the modern city’s godlessness. Aside from the so-called ‘immoral’ imagery, Scruton believed in Western or classical models of beauty. Thus, a major responsibility is attributed to public sculpture: moral civic life and public life go hand-in-hand to imbue harmony into its subjects.

Defendants would explain Day in the context of Epstein’s wider oeuvre. Namely, a pursuit towards universal truth via the themes and subjects of nudity, maternity/paternity, primitivism and allegory. Thus, these primitive influences frame nudity as a natural element, rather than a political ugliness. Is censorship and vehement criticism the price that one has to pay for veering away from traditional European iconography? Alternatively, perhaps Epstein was another white man profiteering from the ‘Otherness’ of so-called ‘primitive’ societies.

After all, Night and Day have clear non-Western elements in their design. Simple in form, the square-shouldered and flattened adult figures of both sculptures recall and liberally fuse elements from ancient Assyria, Polynesia and Egypt. One contemporary protest was by the Egyptologist Flinders Petrie, who argued that the ‘mock simplicity’ of the work was a ‘fad’ of fashion and not in-keeping with ‘the natural beauty of England’. Petrie's words echoed the racist and nationalist attacks Epstein – as a Jewish American émigré – received in his career, which penned his work as alien to Britain and un-English.

Nevertheless, to Western eyes, this depiction – a longing look of the child and exposed genitalia – certainly continues to shock. Epstein was considered ‘avant-garde’ at the time for his pioneering primitivist language. Famously, avant-garde artists were the ones pushing the conventions – the artists excluded from the official Salon in Paris, the economically hopeless Romantics strewn from accepted society – but Epstein was different. Avant-garde yet institutionalised, many of his works feature across the city, on both the street and behind gallery doors. Perhaps this combination of shocking imagery and its institutionalisation were limits pushed too far.

Wherever you stand on the debate, it is astonishing to reflect that most people now wander past the sculpture, blatantly unaware of its controversy. Contemporary art quickly becomes old news, and the shock of the new erodes much quicker than the Portland stone with which it is carved.

Ella Nixon is an art historian, curator and writer. She has written for various publications including the Critic, the ArtReview and The European Conservative.

Subscribe to Ella's Substack

Share

Aged 18 to 30? Have a thirst for ideas, and a passion for discussion and debate? Then join us at Living Freedom summer school 2025. Apply by May 12!

APPLY NOW!

The Trump 2.0 presidency started with a declaration that the US ‘will no longer be woke’. Yet rather than ushering in an end to the culture wars, recent events – whether on campus or online – appear to have had the effect of posing even more questions on the future of freedom in the Western world.

Questions of what it means to be a free citizen are wrapped in an ever-fraught debate of issues related to issues of immigration, culture and identity. Meanwhile, the recent UK Supreme Court ruling may have clarified the meaning of ‘sex’ under the Equality Act, but nevertheless raises new questions about individuals exercising their rights and liberties, not least in the face of institutional resistance. An important question is as to the prospects for freedom in the face of the ongoing rise of populism - not least because many erstwhile critics of the ‘woke’ tendency to shut down freedom now seem less keen to defend the speech of their own opponents.

From workplaces to schools, the most important issues of our time are often a minefield. But at Living Freedom, we welcome these discussions, and provide a civil space for getting to the bottom of these important but often tricky and contentious debates. For example, we will tackle the questions of the changing media-world head on. Digital censorship has been on the rise as a response to the rise of populism across the West, and with it a boom in new media that has been willing to tackle some of the issues that were ignored by mainstream figures. But recently, on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Douglas Murray put a challenge to the alternative media ecosystem: does the democratisation of media mean that no one is willing to take responsibility for their ideas, and untruths have free rein? Has the alternative media sphere solved the problems of mainstream media, or merely created new ones?

Universities, subject to their EDI overlords, have for a long time been hostile environments for frank discussions of controversial but important issues. Therefore the challenges of EDI and compelled speech is a topic that we want to debate - as well as the rise of wellbeing bureaucracies, the origins and evolution of hate-speech laws, and how young people exercise freedom and autonomy in the new digital world of Only Fans, dating apps and online influencers. Lecturers will deal with issues such as the rise and fall of private life and the relationship between extremism and liberty. Others will tackle love in contemporary literature and take a look back at the classic text Culture of Narcissism by Christopher Lasch.

Our expert speakers certainly have lots of knowledge, insights and opinions. But understanding the problems that we face today and ascertaining a way forward will be a collective endeavour - over the course of the three days, participants are not only able to, but are encouraged to, ask questions, put forward alternative perspectives, challenge speakers and each other, and to make their own arguments. We want to give young people the tools to develop their thinking, sharpen their ideas, and be more confident in expressing their opinions, even in a fraught landscape.

We welcome anyone between the ages of 18-30 who has a passion for debate, and believes in the value of freedom and free speech. Successful first-time applicants will receive a generous scholarship, ensuring that each participant pays just £50, which covers both attendance at the school and accommodation in Central London. We are delighted once again to be supported by the Free Speech Union’s Ian MacTaggart Programme to make this possible.

The deadline for applications is Monday 12 May, so get your application in now! And please share this Substack with anyone you think may be interested.

APPLY NOW!

Share

SESSIONS

FREE SPEECH UNION BLOG

We wrote for the Free Speech Union about Living Freedom and the importance of building a culture of free speech:

We can celebrate some significant victories for the cause of freedom in recent weeks – for women’s rights and for free speech on campus, and against the trend to treat psychological harm as grounds for criminalising dissent.

But responses to such gains make it clear that we cannot rely on the courts or on legislation to protect our freedoms…

You can read the rest on the FSU blog.

READ ON

With our summer school on the horizon, here’s a selection of reading to get you thinking, some from speakers at this year’s summer school!

Europe has a free-speech problem
Jacob Mchangama, Persuasion, 18 February 2025

The limits of multicultural citizenship
Jacob Reynolds, Academy of Ideas Substack, 30 March 2025

Kneecap should be mocked, not censored
Brendan O’Neill, Spiked, 30 April 2025

The fight for academic freedom in the UK
Abhishek Saha, Quillette, 6 April 2025

Social media curfew would be an excuse for state overreach
Timandra Harkness, UnHerd, 25 April 2025

Subscribe now

‘When you’re in a hole, stop digging.’ Sadly, this ‘first law of holes’, often attributed to former politician and once Balliol scholar, Denis Healey, seems to have bypassed many universities.

Despite warnings in recent years about the perils of over-expansion, marketisation and anti-intellectualism, reports point to courses closing, redundancies rising, bureaucracy increasing, students becoming dissatisfied, staff demoralised and standards falling. Notably, fewer 18-year-olds now elect to go to university and 40 per cent of universities and other higher-education institutions expect to run a loss in this financial year. What are the underlying problems? And what should universities be? What will it take to get out of the hole?

Some blame the culture wars and the wider politicisation of education. In the US, a Trump-driven ‘vibe shift’ has caused a reassessment of social-justice priorities and funding for DEI, but UK universities seem to be doubling down. For example, newly proposed guidelines aim to make adherence to diversity guidelines a condition of research funding, raising questions as to how academics assert independence to determine research priorities. ‘Decolonising’ reading lists or eliminating gendered language – even from graduation ceremonies – are said by some to be prioritised over defending knowledge and excellence, which are now said to be elitist. Do such shifts help explain, for example, the devaluation of the arts and humanities, which are under siege and facing drastic cuts?

Elsewhere, paternalism can often dominate student life. Some worry that the very notion of the risk-taking, intellectually autonomous student is drowning under directives on wellbeing and mental health. The chancellor of Oxford University, Lord Hague, said universities must not be ‘comfort blankets of cancellation’. But the University of Sussex may be more representative of the new norm with its recent decision to challenge a fine for failing to uphold free speech and insisting on setting guidelines on lawful speech.

However, some students do seem keen to fight back against a censorious culture on campus – and in some instances, even sex and gender debates now go ahead largely free of a ‘heckler’s veto’. Are these signs of hope, or more false promises?

How do students and academics who wish to change campus culture navigate questions about critical inquiry, intellectual independence and academic freedom? Has managerialism destroyed the university for good, or can it be reformed – and if so, how? How can – and should – we best harness the spirit of true intellectual endeavour, inside and outside of universities?

This event is free, but please register here.

SPEAKERS
Felice Basboll · student, Trinity College Dublin; project assistant, Living Freedom
Dr Edward Howell · lecturer in International Relations, University of Oxford,
John Maier · PhD student, University of Oxford; UnHerd columnist

CHAIR
Alastair Donald · convenor, Living Freedom

EVENT DETAILS
TITLE: Crumbling of the ivory towers: what is the purpose of a university?
TIME: Wednesday 7 May, 6:00 pm - 7:30 pm
VENUE: Gillis Lecture Theatre, Balliol College, University of Oxford, Broad Street, Oxford, OX1 3BJ
REGISTER via Living Freedom website

Subscribe now

Share

University education has become ‘infantilised’. So declared the academic David Butterfield in his acclaimed explanation as to why, after 21 years studying and teaching Classics, he felt compelled to resign from the University of Cambridge. In his eyes, such is the decline of British universities that it is no longer possible to fulfil the commitment to excellence in higher education

At Reclaiming the University from the Culture Wars, our recent salon hosted in partnership with Student AFAF, panellists Lara Brown, Jaiden Long and Sam Rubinstein insightfully grappled with the question as to what has fuelled the decline of universities. In the discussion, speakers and audience alike reflected on how students, academics and universities should respond to today’s predicament: that universities seem to have rejected the possibility or even desirability of the risk-taking, critically engaged, intellectually autonomous student.

Below we publish an edited version of Sam Rubinstein’s talk that throws down the challenge ‘Make Academia Difficult Again’.

And in our forthcoming summer school, several talks and debates will reflect on how we shed the view of young people as vulnerable individuals in need of protection and instead reassert a sense of agency and autonomy. More details of the event and how to apply can be found here. No one aged 18 to 30 should miss out on this event. Do apply now to join us and make sure you are part of the debate.

APPLY NOW

The universities: what is to be done?

Sam Rubinstein

Last month, wishing to keep abreast of cutting-edge research on the Middle Ages, I picked up the latest issue of Speculum, America’s premier journal of medieval studies. In the introduction, the editors – one of whom, Professor Roland Betancourt, is best known for his 2020 book Byzantine Intersectionality – crow about how wonderful it is that ‘all of the (named) authors’ in the issue ‘identify as women’.

With that in mind, the contributions that follow are about what you’d expect. One article describes how American medievalists need to ‘com[e] to terms with the legacies of settler colonialism’ by ‘evok[ing] the “framework of joy” that informs… decolonization’. Another rejoices that ‘medieval studies is experiencing an Indigenous turn’. Another praises ‘experimentation with forms of research presentation’ – including ‘drag performance’ and ‘bodysurfing lessons’. At that point, I seriously wondered whether I was reading a Titania McGrath spoof, or fallen for a Sokal hoax, but I promise this is all real.

What I found especially grating was the pro forma incantation of various dogmas. One essay begins with a land acknowledgement. Still another contains the footnote: ‘Note this article is not trans exclusionary: trans women are women.’

As I read this, I was hit by the same series of thoughts which struck Camille Paglia in 1991 when she found, to her horror, that her subject, the study of sexuality in history and literature, had been hijacked by a bunch of activists whose minds had been poisoned by bad French theory that they were, in any case, too thick to understand. What profession am I in? What are its values? What forces are at work in the world that would produce such a shoddy issue of a once-respected and prestigious journal? And then my mind turns in a more Leninist direction: What is to be done?

It so happened that, a few days before reading this issue of Speculum, I was preoccupied with a rather dry collection of essays on nineteenth-century German historiography, written in East Germany in the 1960s. Try as I might, the comparisons, however hackneyed, could not be resisted. Those essays did nothing but chide various nineteenth-century historians for not being Marxists – except, of course, the hagiographical essay on Marx himself. Was a single essay in that volume ever going to conclude with anything other than a vindication of the immortal science of dialectical materialism? Was a single essay in that Speculum issue ever going to conclude with anything other than – to quote one of them – an exhortation for a more ‘forward-thinking, activist, and inclusionary approach for starting… crucial conversations’?

Now, academia is a small world and academics are often by nature conflict-averse. I don’t think the activist-types are necessarily the majority in most faculties, just as I don’t think dyed-in-the-wool communists were necessarily the majority in East Germany. A lot of medievalists probably just want to be left alone, to their coins and their charters and manuscripts. They don’t want to get sucked into stressful political dramas, which run the risk of putting their jobs and reputations at stake. But this has caused the more sensible scholars to retreat from the fight, such that now once-venerable institutions have fallen.

One striking thing about the ideology that has captured Speculum and other institutions of higher learning is really how easy it is. What was demanded of the contributors to the latest issue of Speculum is certainly easier than, say, Latin palaeography, or any of the other hard slogs that serious research on the Middle Ages typically requires.

Many of you, I’m sure, are familiar with Ally Louks, the Cambridge doctoral student whose thesis went viral a few months ago and who now seems to be front-and-centre of Cambridge’s PR strategy. Why did the subject of her thesis – ‘Olfactory Ethics: The Politics of Smell in Modern and Contemporary Prose’ – attract such ridicule and disdain? Misogyny, rings one answer, or ‘anti-intellectualism’. And who knows; maybe there was some of that. But I think there was also a great deal of genuine disgruntlement, especially upon seeing her abstract, at how easy it all seemed. She had merely – as Ella Dorn has pointed out – contorted an unimaginative selection of texts to fit the available, fashionable, ‘2020s’ rubric; and so her thesis is the umpteenth of its sort to talk in clichéd ways about race, gender, power structures, and so forth. This is what so much education in the humanities is now: it’s not about filling one’s brain with facts, nor about being trained in a technical skill. You can only get something like Speculum if, as in East Germany, it has become the whole point of education to be instructed passively in a cluster of ideological fashions and prejudices.

Well, then, with all that being said, I think the solution to our problems is simple: make education hard again. (One person has suggested to me ‘Make Academia Difficult Again’ as an alternative: easier to imagine emblazoned upon a red baseball cap.) This holds as true at the undergraduate level as at the level of academic research. Bring back rigorous exams. Stop handing out firsts and 2.1s to anybody who can string a sentence together, and even some who can’t. Restore factual and technical knowledge to their rightful place at the heart of higher education. Get rid of duff degree programmes – even Cambridge offers a degree in ‘Human, Social and Political Science’. Stop allowing deadline extensions, and stop yapping on about ‘wellbeing’; expect students to be able to read big books without summoning forth the ‘welfare alpacas’ or ‘therapy dogs’.

And expect, likewise, that those who are fortunate enough to enjoy an academic career actually contribute to the progress of human knowledge in a meaningful way; expect the next issue of Speculum to be filled with specialist research, rather than the sort of dross you’d find in an Instagram infographic. Scholarship, aside from anything else, ought to be sufficiently difficult that those who do it for a living shouldn’t really be able to also be full-time activists, and those who’d rather do activism can scuttle off into politics or NGO-world instead. They’d probably be much happier. Paglia finished that 1991 essay with the line, ‘It’s time to clean house’. Indeed it is, and we can do that most effectively by restoring, and raising, academic rigour and standards.

Sam Rubinstein is a postgraduate historian and writer for publications including Spectator, UnHerd, Engelsberg Ideas and The Times. Find Sam on Substack at The Art of Throwing Eggs.

Share

Subscribe now

‘VIBE SHIFT’: A NEW ERA FOR FREEDOM?

Living Freedom is dedicated to renewing freedom for our times. Our three-day residential school on 26 to 28 June is open to anyone based in the UK or beyond. We aim to bring together participants with a wide range of interests and diverse views. Anyone interested in getting to grips with issues of freedom and free speech should apply – with all first-time attendees benefitting from a Living Freedom 2025 Scholarship that covers 90 per cent of fees (full cost £500). Full details available here.

Across the planet, political discussion is dominated by the American ‘Vibe Shift’ and the implications of Trump 2.0 for reshaping Western politics and culture. After a decade and more of freedoms feeling under siege, some anticipate that actions to counter race and gender ideologies, dismantle the DEI empire or ‘restore freedom of speech and end federal censorship’ will help usher in a more upbeat era, one where free expression again flourishes as the lifeblood of democracy.

Others remain downbeat, fearful that freedoms may founder on the rocks of legal or institutional resistance or be derailed by a partisan political class that rarely embraces the ideal of ‘free speech for all’. Is it sensible to rely on Trumpism for our freedoms? With technologies such as X now operating from the White House, and Meta now seemingly on board with the new regime, is the US government’s influence over ever more of the public square to be feared or celebrated?

Shifting loyalties and cultural hegemonies in the US are one thing, but what will be the impact downstream in Europe? Will Big Tech’s seeming turn against content moderation prevail in the face of European commitments to controlling hate speech and misinformation online? Can the quest for more open political debate survive the firewalling of populist parties in Europe? Can growth and development struggle free of environmental green tape and lawfare? And how best can agency and individual freedom be defended in the face of increasing incursions in the private sphere by officialdom? Is the trajectory towards scepticism of everything, from official fact-checkers to EDI, a sign that the tide is turning, especially with the young, keen to shake off their reputation as Generation Snowflake.

Clearly this is a moment of flux when we need to examine afresh many of the big, historically significant questions related to freedom and free speech.

Living Freedom Summer School 2025 is your chance to be involved in such debates. We’ll place recent trends in wider context through expert lectures on key developments in the history and philosophy of freedom; panel-led debates will cover contemporary challenges and hot topics of our time; workshops allow attendees to explore classic texts and ethical dilemmas.

In changing times, join us to assess the challenges and opportunities and to develop the arguments we need to make the 21st-century case for freedom.

Sessions include

· The Trump effect: step forward or setback for freedom?

· Privacy and Freedom: the rise and fall of private life

· Rule of law vs the rule of lawyers

· Young dissenters: how to fight back against conformism

· Any many more

MORE INFO AND APPLY NOW

Living Freedom is organised by Ideas Matter and supported by the Ian Mactaggart Programme administered by Free Speech Union

CAN YOU SUPPORT A LIVING FREEDOM SCHOLAR?

The cost of providing a place at the summer school is £500. However, each attendee will pay just £50, a massive reduction of £450. This is because Living Freedom uses a targeted scholarships programme that ensures that we can select attendees on merit, irrespective of their financial circumstances.

By supporting a Living Freedom scholar, you will play a vital part in encouraging a generational renewal of the values of freedom and free speech. Learn more about supporting a scholar through the link below.

SUPPORT A SCHOLAR

LIVING FREEDOM FORUM
Friday 7 March, 7pm, Westminster

Our next in-person forum event is organised in association with Student Academics for Academic Freedom (SAFAF) and takes place in Westminster on Friday 7 March at 7pm.

Our panel of young thinkers and activists will reflect on the question of how to reclaim the university from the culture wars. How do students who wish to change campus culture navigate questions about intellectual independence and academic freedom? Has managerialism destroyed the university for good, or can it be reformed? What are the biggest problems facing the modern university? How can we in the 21st-century best harness the spirit of true intellectual endeavour, inside and outside the universities?

For more details and to register, see here.

OPEN TO ARGUMENT
Monday 10 March, Queen Mary University of London

‘Open to Argument’ is a new forum organised by Committee for Academic Freedom, in partnership with Queen Mary University of London AFAF and is dedicated to encouraging lively, intelligent, good-faith discussions on controversial topics.

The first debate on Monday 10 March is entitled ‘Will Trump's Second Presidency be Good or Bad for Academic Freedom?’ Panelists Eric Kaufmann, James Orr, Alan Sokal and Helen Pluckrose will examine Trump's ambitious plans for higher education, his sweeping executive orders on DEI and academic policy, and the broader implications of Trump 2.0 for free intellectual inquiry in universities.

The event is free to attend and takes place at Queen Mary University of London. Reserve a place here.

READ ON

With our summer school on the horizon, here’s a selection of reading to get you thinking.

Free Love? A Tentative Victory for Overnight Guests
Felice Basboll, University Times, 26 February 2025

‘If you genuinely think Trump is a fascist, go and have a lie down’
Tom Slater, spiked, 7 February 2025

How to revive our reading culture
Tiffany Jenkins, Engelsberg Ideas, 6 March 2025

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023: The Student Response
JE Long, Student AFAF Substack, 18 January 2025

Britain’s information war on America
NS Lyons, 4 March 2025

Share

Subscribe now