AI Summary

The open letter, written by a group of Ghent University employees and supported by international colleagues, defends Ghent University’s decision to suspend philosopher Nathan Cofnas and investigate his conduct. The authors argue that the suspension is a precautionary measure—not punishment for whistleblowing—and that the case concerns racism, university ethics, and the limits of academic freedom.

Main points

Concerns existed before the Jason Arday controversy. The authors say objections to Cofnas’s appointment at Ghent University arose before the death of professor Jason Arday. They concerned both Cofnas’s reported views on race and the process by which he was hired.

The authors characterize Cofnas’s views as racist and white supremacist. They point to statements in his blog A Guide to the Hereditarian Revolution, including claims about racial differences, support for racial separation/“racial tribalism,” and arguments that racial composition should influence public policy.

They argue that some of his statements conflict with Ghent’s ethics code. In particular, they cite the university's prohibitions on inciting discrimination, hatred, violence, or segregation and on promoting racial superiority or racial hatred.

They reject the idea that the suspension is retaliation for whistleblowing. According to the letter, complaints about Cofnas predated the Arday controversy. The authors argue that the university’s current investigation is therefore not a punishment for Cofnas raising allegations about Arday.

They distinguish criticism of Arday from Cofnas’s broader racial views. The authors say Cofnas repeatedly used media appearances about the Arday case to promote his views on race, making it difficult, in their view, to treat the two issues as completely separate.

They argue that suspension is not itself a punishment. The letter emphasizes that the August 20, 2026 suspension is described as a precautionary measure while a disciplinary investigation takes place. A disciplinary body will determine what happens next.

They reject claims that the investigation violates academic freedom. Their position is that academic freedom is important but not unlimited. They argue that universities can investigate conduct that conflicts with ethical standards, discrimination policies, academic integrity, or equal participation in academic life. They dispute the characterization of Cofnas as being punished for controversial scientific research.

They cite scientists who have criticized Cofnas’s scholarship. Several researchers are quoted as arguing that his claims lack adequate evidence, fail to engage seriously with relevant scientific literature, or do not meet normal academic standards. The letter also notes that at least one critic nevertheless supports very broad academic freedom and opposes sanctioning Cofnas.

They see the Cofnas case as part of a broader institutional issue. The authors argue that organizations promoting racial pseudoscience have sought to gain legitimacy by establishing connections with universities and academic institutions. They therefore want Ghent to examine not only Cofnas's conduct but also how his appointment happened and what institutional safeguards failed.

They point out that Cofnas himself has advocated removing ideological opponents. The letter quotes writings in which Cofnas calls for opponents to be “purged” or removed from positions of authority. The authors use this to challenge the claim that he is uniquely committed to academic freedom.

Bottom line

The letter's central argument is that “Ghent University should investigate Cofnas not because he challenged academic orthodoxy or engaged in whistleblowing, but because the authors believe his public statements and conduct violate the university's ethical standards and promote racist pseudoscience”.

More broadly, the authors argue that academic freedom and anti-racism are not inherently contradictory: protecting academic freedom requires maintaining standards of evidence, intellectual honesty, and equal participation, while preventing universities from being used to legitimize racism.