Wykehamists have expanded the acceptable realms for discussion and,
in doing so, have nurtured divergent thinking. It is their tradition –
the custom of free thought and inquiry – that has been truly radical.
Wykehamists have long been the enemies of consensus.
The urge to approach some problem differently – to
be divergent thinkers – is commonplace among the
school’s alumni. It is the urge that inspired Douglas
Jardine (C, 1914-19) to instruct Harold Larwood
to bowl at the body; Geoffrey Howe (E, 1940-45)
to reject economic consensus; John Lucas (Coll,
1942-47) to refute computationalism.
Divergent thinking has buzzed around Winchester’s
scientific tradition too. The neurologist Oliver Sacks
said of Freeman Dyson (Coll, 1936-41) that ‘A favourite
word of Freeman’s about doing science and being
creative is the word “subversive”. He feels it’s rather
important not only to be unorthodox, but to be
subversive, and he’s done that all his life.’ Physicist
Steven Weinberg echoed similar sentiments, ‘I have
the sense that when consensus is forming like ice
hardening on a lake, Dyson will do his best to chip
at the ice.’
At Winchester, Dyson studied alongside James Lighthill
(Coll, 1936-41) and Christopher Longuet-Higgins
(Coll, 1935-41) and his brother Michael (Coll, 1939-43)
in an illustrious gang of four. All became Fellows
of the Royal Society. Dyson credits ‘the enormous
stimulus of growing up together’ for their individual
successes. By studying together and questioning
each other’s views, it was at Winchester that these
four eminent scientists learnt the power of inquiry
and academic thinking.
There have been steadying thinkers too. Sir John
Sinclair’s time as head of the Secret Intelligence Service
was marked by his practical management and reluctance
to accommodate risk-takers. But when the rate of
change is so quick, it is often the divergent thinker
who stands athwart progress and asks ‘are you sure?’
16 The Wykeham Journal 2017
Young people today suffer from a lack of divergent
thinking. In American universities – popular
destinations for Wykehamists pursuing higher
education – a closed-minded movement is taking
root. Its arguments are best summarised by an
article in The New Yorker by Harvard legal scholar
Jennie Suk, who alleged that her students demanded
their professors should not teach delicate legal
matters lest it cause them distress. Moreover, Suk
reported that these young minds discouraged the
use of ‘violates’ in legal language. Disciples of this
orthodoxy hold that students and other selected
groups are too weak to hear the opinions of others,
and therefore must be protected from the danger
of alternative views.
Professors speaking out against this misanthropic
hysteria have faced fierce criticism and hounding by
their students. In February 2015, Laura Kipness, who
teaches at Northwestern University, wrote a piece
in The Chronicle of Higher Education documenting
what she perceived as a rise in sexual paranoia on
campus. Her offended students demanded, and
received, a lengthy investigation into her conduct.
Since I left Winchester in 2014, I have seen this
censorious faction at British universities too. Like
their American counterparts, British censors have
justified their shutting down of ideas through
sensitivity and concern regarding student wellbeing.
Talks and debates have been cancelled across the
country’s seats of higher learning because of the
threat of the wrong opi