Professor Niall Ferguson, a Senior Research Fellow at Jesus College, has penned an open letter to the Harvard Crimson newspaper repudiating accusations of homophobia which arose after he criticised the economist John Maynard Keynes because he was gay and childless.
Last week Professor Ferguson found himself censured after he appeared on stage at a Strategic Investment conference in California and suggested that the economic theories of Keynes were flawed because he was a homosexual with no interest in the long-term future of society. Ferfuson later issued a full apology for the comments on his personal blog.
In this latest letter Professor Ferguson said that, “Not for one moment did I mean to suggest that Keynesian economics as a body of thought was simply a function of Keynes’ sexuality.” However, he did add that “Keynes’ sexual orientation did have historical significance.” He also attacked the “self-appointed speech police of the blogosphere,” who he accused of making no “effort to understand the nature and dire consequences of prejudice.”
Whilst Professor Ferguson maintained that his original comments were “stupid,” he also said, “The historian, unlike the economist, is concerned with biography as well as with statistics…Keynes’ sexual orientation did have historical significance. The strong attraction he felt for the German banker Carl Melchior undoubtedly played a part in shaping Keynes’ views on the Treaty of Versailles and its aftermath.”
Ferguson also directed an attack towards his many critics, saying, “The charge of homophobia is equally easy to refute. If I really were a ‘gay-basher’, as some headline writers so crassly suggested, why would I have asked Andrew Sullivan, of all people, to be the godfather of one of my sons, or to give one of the readings at my wedding?…What the self-appointed speech police of the blogosphere forget is that to err occasionally is an integral part of the learning process. And one of the things I learnt from my stupidity last week is that those who seek to demonize error, rather than forgive it, are among the most insidious enemies of academic freedom.”
Whilst criticism of Ferguson has been intense, some journalists have come to his defence over the past week. Writing for the Spectator, Douglas Murray said “I don’t think Niall Ferguson needed to apologise for making this comment. The attempt to shut down debate to such an extent that a glib off-thecuff comment such as this can be subjected to such souped-up outrage is another reminder that the left-wing search for what it thinks of as ‘equality’ has become little more than an attempt to ignore any and all differences that exist in the world.”
Opposition to Ferguson from Oxford students, however, has continued unabated. Tom Rutland, OUSU President-Elect, spoke to Cherwell saying, “Ferguson’s original apology was unreserved. This second statement on the matter stinks of ‘sorry, not sorry’ and completely undermines his previous apology.”
“As for his comments questioning the attempts of his critics to ‘understand the nature and dire consequences of prejudice’, I simply say this to him: I’ve experienced such prejudice without having to undertake any academic research into it, and he should be grateful that he doesn’t have to experience it. He shouldn’t patronise victims of prejudice by playing the white, straight male hero who has academically researched what it must be like to be on the receiving end of hate – discriminated against groups know what it feels like all too well, and much better than he does.”
