This January, I got the unparalleled opportunity to take a class with the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Rt. Hon. David Cameron. The class revolved around the pillars of practicing politics in an age of disruption, and we interacted with British diplomats, career politicians, and journalists who have been intimately involved in the trajectory of British politics. Class discussions ranged from the migration crisis in the English Channel to the socio-economic factors that drove Brexit.

A sentiment of stark skepticism pervaded throughout campus when the Financial Times first broke the news of the professor’s appointment. While a handful rejoiced over the high-profile nature of the appointment, there was also a deep sense of resentment brewing among the wider student population.

This resentment spread through informal lunch-table conversations and social media platforms. The discourse quickly transformed into one of academic freedom and institutional responsibility, with the burning question being: To what extent should a prospective professor’s personal and professional background factor into their hiring decision?

The Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition led by David Cameron lasted between 2010-2015 and triggered a milieu of devastating political decisions — from financial austerity that crippled low-income groups to putting the National Health Service on a ventilator to closing the door on refugees who were escaping havoc in their own countries. But, perhaps most significantly, there was and still remains a widespread understanding that this government was responsible for catalyzing Brexit — a watershed moment in the 21st century, the residues of which dictate economic and cultural anxieties in Britain today and will do so for the foreseeable future.

Despite these realities, I fundamentally believe that NYUAD has space for faculty like David Cameron, to herald the virtue of academic freedom which has been the foundational building block of our community. The propagation of this freedom offers protections to those students who profess ideas and viewpoints that digress from those of the majority. The term ‘academic freedom’ comes with heavy political baggage in nonsectarian and nonpartisan institutions. Where do we draw the line with engaging with politically controversial ideas? Should there be a line and do some ideas not deserve to be engaged with?

The scope of these overarching questions is vast and this article is not making a generalist case for blanket ‘academic freedom.’ Instead, for the purpose of this article, I want to keep these theoretical questions aside and specifically discuss this hiring in relation to NYUAD, our academic mission, and the vision that it resonates with.

Condensing the discussion to our campus specifically, there are three reasons I make the case for welcoming professors like David Cameron, whose political inclinations do not necessarily fit within the overton window of our campus. An overton window refers to the “spectrum of acceptable political positions” across a specific demographic frame. Translate this into the academic realm, and we find an inclination to resist professors that have historically advocated for implementation of conservative social and economic policies.

However, I argue that this form of ‘resistance’ is counterproductive and in fact antithetical to those who wish to vigorously promote liberal values across campus. There is more power in dissecting works that we disagree with than in resisting such forms of scholarship. Furthermore, to what extent is stifling and certain forms of scholarship acceptable on an institutional level?

When I took the class I saw it as an unmatched opportunity to sit in front of a former Prime Minister, who had signed legislation that gravely affected the lives of millions. For 17 days, three hours every day, I had a chance to ask him tough and ruthless questions about why he did what he did. I cannot fathom another space that would give me access to such information about decision-making at the highest echelons of British politics.

According to The Sunday Times, Chinese business leaders paid up to 12,000 GBP to be at a dinner with David Cameron in 2018, three years after his Prime Ministership. This appalling capital only goes to show that access to top decision-makers is highly valuable and exclusive. In our context, this access then becomes a non-negotiable prerequisite for accountability. If we want answers, we need to seize opportunities that grant that access. Repression of academic freedom in such a context, far from shielding us from error, undermines the very process of truth-seeking.

Secondly, an interrogative approach is the hallmark of a liberal arts university ecosystem. This manifests through our Core Curriculum which facilitates student engagement in global issues that have been characteristic of the 21st century. These include issues like climate change, systemic racism, and the future of technology. As an institution, we have never shied away from discussing these topics. In fact, the inclusion of these subjects within the curriculum not only broadens one’s intellectual horizon but also promotes critical inquiry — a value that lies at the heart of humanistic discourse.

Without the avid inculcation of critical inquiry, there is no driver in the production of knowledge and thus institutions of higher education lose out on nurturing their mission. On an individual level, critical inquiry and the exploration of ideologically opposing views lead to forming “informed agency.” We can rebut more only if we know the opposition’s arguments and views — this is the prime attribute of “informed agency.” Moreover, classrooms can serve as a vehicle to disrupt ingrained biases by exploring new materials and points of view. Cumulatively, having professors with differing ideological beliefs only strengthens one’s critique against them.

We need to engage with controversial ideas more respectfully. Hiring professors that facilitate this engagement helps universities make strides in fostering a constructive academic culture. This fostering is induced by opening up a space for opinions to be vocalized across the political spectrum. De-platforming professors under the pretext of their ideological opinions risks pushing ourselves into constrained political echo chambers. We are an institution with a strong and principled underpinning and I am not propagating boundless academic freedom. But what I am advocating for is a more generous space, especially in the academy, where free inquiry, experimentation, and interdisciplinary exploration are often essential to a deeper and richer production of knowledge.