Academy Of Ideas

Listen to this debate from the Battle of Ideas festival 2019. Could artificial intelligence (AI) transform education? Schools are already tentatively exploring ‘adaptive learning’ applications, which identify gaps in a student’s knowledge and build personalised quizzes. Sir Anthony Seldon, author of The Fourth Education Revolution, argues that by taking care of the mechanical aspects of education, AI can free up teachers to focus on creativity and problem-solving. What might this mean in practice and what do teachers make of the idea that our schools are churning out ‘robot-like’ workers? What, if anything, is uniquely human about being a teacher and how important are the relationships between teacher, pupil and subject? Speakers include: CARLA AERTS director, Tmrw Institute; former director of futures, Institute of Education, UCL; global digital director, Cambridge University Press Education DONALD CLARK EdTech entrepreneur; CEO, WildFire; board member, Cogbooks and LearningPool JEN PERSSON director, de

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019. From climate change to tax evasion, humanity’s biggest challenges are increasingly global. Many of those frustrated by our lack of progress on these issues argue for some form of world government. If the United Nations, or some similar body, had real power over national governments, global agreements could be made and enforced. But others argue that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for seven billion people to hold a world government to account. Indeed, many find the idea of a world government sinister. Nevertheless, can we really solve our global problems without global political institutions? Speakers include: ANDREAS BUMMEL executive director, Democracy without Borders; co-author, A World Parliament: governance and democracy in the 21ST century IAN CRAWFORD professor of planetary science and astrobiology, Birkbeck College, University of London MARY KALDOR emeritus professor of global governance, LSE; director, Conflict and

Debate recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival on Saturday 2 November 2019. Critics argue that relatively little has been done since the financial crisis to fix the underlying problems that precipitated it. Have we failed to take the old advice to ‘never waste a good crisis’? Extraordinary monetary measures are still mostly in place, but there are heated debates about whether the major developed economies are healthier or weaker than in 2008. Acclaimed Guardian economics editor Larry Elliott explores what can be done to pull the west out of its economic malaise. How can we challenge the ‘new normal’ of low growth, poor productivity and stagnating living standards? PHIL MULLAN economist and business manager; author, Creative Destruction: how to start an economic renaissance IN CONVERSATION WITH: LARRY ELLIOTT economics editor, Guardian; co-author, Europe Isn’t Working and The Gods That Failed: how the financial elite have gambled away our futures

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019. The result of the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 seemed to put paid for the foreseeable future to the most significant threat to the Union, but the result of the EU referendum in 2016 has put the cat amongst the pigeons once more. The future of Northern Ireland has also been a constant bone of contention since the Brexit vote. In September, a shock opinion poll suggested that a quarter of Welsh voters would vote for independence. Is the Union really in imminent danger? Is there a positive case for the UK today, whether economic, political or even emotional? **SPEAKERS** MEV BROWN spokesperson, SDP Scotland; former spokesperson, Business for Britain in Scotland; campaigner, Better Together DR RUTH DUDLEY EDWARDS journalist, historian and broadcaster; award-winning author, The Seven and Patrick Pearse: the triumph of failure LINDA MURDOCH campaigner for rights and democracy in Scotland; director of careers, University of Glasgow AKASH P

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019. The Court of Arbitration for Sport has ruled women with naturally higher levels of testosterone cannot compete in women’s sport events unless they reduce their testosterone with medication. CAS was hearing an appeal by a South African runner, Caster Semenya, against a ruling by the governing body of athletics, the IAAF, that she cannot compete in certain events having been born with a condition leading to unusually high testosterone levels. What does this mean for elite sport? And can we separate sports from other areas of society in which discrimination against people with different sexual developments is taboo? DR CARLTON BRICK lecturer in sociology, School of Media, Culture and Society, University of the West of Scotland DR SILVIA CAMPORESI director of bioethics and society postgraduate programme, King’s College London; co-author, Bioethics, Genetics and Sport GEORGINA NEWCOMBE student, Durham University; athlete and footballer; Living Free

The results of yesterday's UK General Election throw up many different issues. Why did the Conservatives end up winning comfortably? Why did the Labour vote collapse, with seats that had voted Labour for decades switching to the Tories? Does the success of the SNP in Scotland mean there will be another independence referendum? What does it all mean for Brexit? Discussing these issues and more are Alastair Donald, Claire Fox, Rob Lyons, Jacob Reynolds and Ella Whelan.

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019. Thanks to Living and Dying Well for their partnership on this debate. The question of whether assisted suicide (often known as assisted dying) is morally defensible, or should be legally permitted, is a familiar issue of medical ethics. Polls suggest that most people in Britain support a change in the law to allow it. By contrast, the British medical establishment has a longstanding record of opposition to legalisation – though there are suggestions that this may be changing. Should the law look leniently on relatives who help a patient to die? What if the patient would suffer more harm by staying alive? Indeed, should the idea of ‘harm’ be redefined and, if so, how? What would be the role of doctors, and ‘conscientious objection’, were the law to change? Dr Jacky Davis consultant radiologist, Whittington Hospital; member, BMA Council, chair, Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying; board member, Dignity in Dying Dr Carol Davis palliative me

A recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival on Sunday 3 November 2019. The angry exchanges in parliament after the Supreme Court ruled against prorogation were typical of the ill-tempered discourse around Brexit. This year it was also deemed acceptable to ‘milkshake’ those you disagree with. Looking at a world seemingly filled with slurs, angry social-media comments, inflammatory remarks about migrants and nasty jibes about ‘gammons’ and ‘TERFs’, many commentators have called this an age of ‘toxic politics’. Should we lament a lost civility, or is the emergence of more forthright and angry disagreements in fact a good thing? What is the line between passionate disagreement and toxic bile? How can we fi nd ways to disagree with other people constructively? DOLAN CUMMINGS associate fellow, Academy of Ideas; co- founder, Manifesto Club; author, That Existential Leap: a crime story TIMANDRA HARKNESS journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4’s FutureProofi ng and How to Disagree: a be

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019. Earlier this year, Gillette produced an advert aimed at challenging ‘toxic masculinity’. Although somewhat frivolous, the example illustrates a growing trend among the world’s biggest companies to weigh in on social issues. In perhaps the most infamous example of all, in 2017, Pepsi released an advert with Kylie Jenner healing divisions at a protest march. The advert was widely condemned for appropriating the legacy of the civil-rights movement. But many companies seem to genuinely care about social causes. Unilever, one of the world’s biggest companies, has made ambitious environmental commitments that are priorities at all levels of the company. For some observers, this is evidence of a genuine shift in how businesses think about their role, often underpinned by new generations of employees demanding change. But critics have condemned what’s been called ‘woke capitalism’ or even ‘wokewashing’. Are 'woke' corporations a cynical attempt to curry fa

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019.   There is something of an obsession with ‘normality’ today. Sally Rooney’s novel, Normal People, was widely acclaimed for its sensitive portrayal of everyday contemporary relationships. The TV smash hit Fleabag was likewise praised for its unflinching portrayal of ‘normal’ British middle-class sexual mores. But attitudes towards ‘normality’ seem difficult to get a handle on today. On the one hand, campaigns to raise awareness for a variety of social or psychological ills seek to show it is not ‘abnormal’, for example, to experience depression and that such people ‘are not alone’. But on the other hand, the proliferation of identity characteristics encourage people to be celebrate difference, uniqueness and not being ‘normal’. What are we to make of this shifting understanding of what it is to be normal? Should we just accept that everything is unstable, that we can’t expect a single category of ‘normal’ to be helpful? Does society need a concept of

Recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival 2019. Today’s political culture seems obsessed with dark, apocalyptic visions. From young people staging ‘die-ins’ to protest about the environment to talk of an ‘insect apocalypse’, fears and threats loom large. Extinction Rebellion argues that the threat of catastrophe means we must reject growth and material progress in favour of a new eco-austerity. Even proponents of new technology often see it as a means of avoiding environmental catastrophe rather than transforming the world for the better. What can we learn about the present from our attitude to the future? Do we need to recover our faith in the future – and by extension, ourselves? DR SHAHRAR ALI home affairs spokesperson and former deputy leader, Green Party; author, Why Vote Green 2015 GREGORY CLAEYS professor of history, Royal Holloway, University of London; author, Searching for Utopia: the history of an idea; fellow, RSA DR ASHLEY FRAWLEY senior lecturer in sociology and social policy, Sw

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019. Monty Python’s Life of Brian was released in the UK on 8 November 1979. The film had problems from the start, with its funding withdrawn by EMI films at the last minute, but it was rescued by former Beatle George Harrison putting up the money for it to be made. Forty years later, it would be nice to say that we’re more relaxed about religion and comedy. But in truth, while Christianity is considered fair game (notwithstanding the later controversy over Jerry Springer: The Opera), satirising Islam remains deeply controversial, as illustrated by the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the mealy-mouthed reaction to the killings by many supposedly liberal commentators and artists. Could Brian be made today? Why does it still work today? Have we lost the ability to ridicule the dominant ideas of our society? And have comedians, writers and producers lost their edge for fear of causing offence? SIMON EVANS comedian; regular panellist, BBC Radio 4's The News Quiz

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019. ‘Humour is a weapon of the patriarchy.’ So says Titania McGrath, the Twitter superstar who describes herself as an activist, healer and radical intersectionalist poet. Titania has become famous for her ‘woke’ words of wisdom, such as ‘heterosexuality is a hoax’. Of course, those of us who have been following Titania’s rise to fame will know that she is, in fact, fictional – a satirical character dreamt up by the author and comedian Andrew Doyle. Boasting a Twitter following in the hundreds of thousands, Doyle’s parody of a ‘typical Guardian reader’ has managed to fool some so-called ‘social-justice warriors’ into believing Titania’s cries of oppression, as well as revealing uncomfortable truths about the degraded state of identity politics. But not everyone is a fan of Titania. Doyle has been accused of ‘punching down’ with his satire of contemporary ‘leftie’ politics. Is poking fun at social-justice campaigns merely a right-wing ploy – even though

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019. A recent EU report found 89 per cent of Jews living in member countries feel anti-Semitism has increased over the past decade, while 85 per cent believe it to be a serious problem. Anti-Semitism has traditionally been associated with the political right and with national chauvinism, but today it is often radical Islamists or even leftists, rather than nationalists, who are accused of prejudice against Jews. But can alleged anti-Semitism in the British Labour party really be compared to the fascist Oswald Mosley? Is anti-Zionism a distinct and legitimate position? How best can we define anti-Semitism? As Israel descends into political and, some would say, moral crisis, is it possible to criticise Israel without being anti-Semitic? And most importantly, if anti-Semitism is on the rise, how can we best combat it? PROFESSOR FRANK FUREDI sociologist and social commentator; author, How Fear Works: culture of fear in the 21st century and Populism and the

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas festival 2019. Many commentators have observed that Britain enjoys, by European standards at least, a uniquely stable party-political system. In many other European countries, collapsing empires, social uprisings or world wars fuelled new parties and shifting popular allegiances. Britain, on the other hand, is notable for the longevity – and adaptability – of its established parties. But amid rising volatility, fragmentation and polarisation in the early twenty-first century, are we reaching a historic moment of change? Are new-style political ‘movements’ such as the Brexit Party or independent, local initiatives a promising way forward? Could we be on the brink of a new political landscape and, if so, how should we seek to shape it? JONNY BALL special projects writer, New Statesman MIRANDA GREEN journalist and commentator; deputy editor of opinion pages, Financial Times; former Liberal Democrat advisor SHERELLE JACOBS columnist and commissioning editor of com

Recording of the opening remarks from a Battle of Ideas festival satellite event on Monday 18 November 2019. Schools are unique institutions. Their most obvious role is in relation to education and the generational transfer of knowledge. However, they also mediate between the state and parents in shaping the next generation. Schools enforce behavioural expectations and instil particular values while preparing children for the responsibilities of adulthood. Schools have always played this role. However, over recent years the values and expectations championed by schools have become more explicitly political and more contested. From lessons on climate change and recycling to cultural awareness days, it can appear as if schools, through children, aim at broader social change. In this respect we seem to now be witnessing the emergence of the ‘Culture Wars’ in Education. One consequence is that tensions between schools and parents spill out in conflicts over contentious issues such as teaching of sex and relati

Recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2018. Since the fall of communism, the dominant narrative around international politics and economics has been that of a stable order defined by liberal, free-market values and agreements. In recent years, faith in the liberal international vision seems to have been shattered. In response to the rise of China and resurgence of Russia, populists across the world, most famously President Trump, have denounced free-trade agreements and collective security arrangements. Are we really moving into a more protectionist world, or will free-trade ideology make a comeback? How will the rise of China and the ‘global south’, alongside the apparent slow decline of the US, change things? CAMERON ABADI deputy editor, Foreign Policy REMI ADEKOYA PhD researcher on identity politics, Sheffield University; columnist; member, Editorial Working Group, Review of African Political Economy PROFESSOR BILL DURODIE chair of international relations, University of Bath DR TARA MC

In 2019, over than a dozen US states have either passed or attempted to pass stricter abortion legislation. Georgia's new law bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Alabama's new law would more or less ban abortion entirely. How should those who are pro-choice respond? This Battle of Ideas debate from 2016 remains very relevant. Original introduction In her new book, Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and a veteran campaigner for abortion rights, sets out the ethical arguments for a woman’s right to choose, drawing on the traditions of sociological thinking and moral philosophy. This discussion will consider the moral and philosophical foundations on which Furedi builds her case. We will also explore the relevance of this approach to the pro-choice cause, particularly the current campaign to decriminalise abortion altogether. Is it moral for women to choose abortion? Should campaigners for abortion focus on issues of health and mental well-being or argue for an absolu

Recording of the debate at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2018. Visiting Europe in the summer, President Trump lambasted Germany’s relationship with Russia, took a dig at Theresa May’s Brexit strategy and seemingly sided with Vladimir Putin against America’s own intelligence agencies. The UK’s former foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, also famously made numerous diplomatic gaffes. Once diplomacy was regarded as a careful art, furthering national interests through back-channels and coded language, and pursued by highly educated diplomats. But in recent years, politicians have seemed keener to make loud public statements at the expense of cool negotiation. Why do politicians seem to respond to events on the hoof rather than pursuing a long-term strategy? Are they playing with fire? MARY DEJEVSKY former foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster PROFESSOR BILL DURODIÉ chair of international relations, University of Bath DR SEAN LANG senior lectu

After three decades teaching at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, there have recently been calls from campus activists for Camille Paglia to be sacked from her post for having 'dangerous' views. Listen to this discussion at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2016, with Paglia in conversation with Claire Fox, and decide for yourself. Original session introduction Internationally renowned American social critic Camille Paglia has been called ‘the anti-feminist feminist’. A staunch defender of individual freedom, she has argued against laws prohibiting pornography, drugs and abortion. Describing contemporary feminism as a ‘reactionary reversion’ and ‘a gross betrayal of the radical principles of 1960s counterculture’, she stands firmly on the side of free speech and against political correctness. She has argued that though today’s feminists strike progressive poses, their ideas emanate from an entitled, upper-middle-class point of view. This has led Paglia to become one of the US’s foremost critics of cont