You are right - it is a thorny issue. Frankly, even if he is presented as an academic of a particular university, I don't see that this should limit his right to free speech. If his letter or article shows that his area is law then people should be able to work out that he cannot be speaking on behalf of the university and a matter not pertaining to law. If of course he says that the view he is putting represents university policy, and it conflicts with university policy, then the university has a right to challenge him on that.
My general viewpoint is that people's right to free speech should not be limited - it is much better to counter views like Fraser's with rational argument rather than suppressing their views altogether. If people can only react by suppressing a person's viewpoint rather than debating it, it implies that they have no arguments to counter it, or are too lazy to. I don't believe in making martyrs out of people, especially when they don't deserve that status!
I would certainly challenge Fraser's comments, and the research he might base any comments on intelligence in race, but I would not demand he not be allowed to say what he thinks just because I think it is stupid and insulting. If you're a Christian, a Muslim, a communist or a Fascist, you have a right to those views and to express them, and others have a right to freely express their reasons for rejecting anything you might say. That's what freedom of speech is all about.
Rifty -- Academic and Computing Help
