Freedom of speech must be for all—not just those with the loudest voices

In the current issue of Prospect, Frank Furedi accuses certain student groups of simply “shutting down” views they do not agree with. However, his arguments rest on lazy generalisations that group together many separate and different issues.

Freedom of speech, academic freedom and the safety of all students: these three principles are incredibly important to the NUS, and we have always respected them. In fact, along with individual students’ unions, the NUS has often been the first to challenge those who seek to deny others the right to be heard. I absolutely agree that students should be exposed to challenging concepts, whether that’s in lecture theatres or in their unions. The very reason that academic freedom is so important, symbolic and empowering is that it exposes us to views of this kind. But I must question those who want to blur the lines between encouraging academic debate and just forcing people to hear more misogyny, homophobia and racism on campus. Students do live in the real world, and “concepts” such as sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia don’t come as a surprise to them.

For many students, the start of university will be the first time they meet people from different backgrounds and engage with beliefs contradictory to the ones they were raised with. It is a new chapter in their lives, and is often the place where they first explore their sexualities, genders, beliefs and personal politics. This journey of discovery is helped along by students’ unions, which offer a huge range of new experiences, support, advice and activities. They also invite thousands of speakers to debate and take part in events organised by a huge range of diverse student societies.

The fair representation of black and minority ethnic students, LGBT students, students of all faiths and none, international students, mature students, student parents and part time students is something the NUS strives to deliver. Lots of our staff and members have marched proudly alongside those who want to see a stronger and more cohesive society. But to achieve that society we must empower those who are often sidelined not just from debate, but entirely. These are people who are often left without a voice. Whilst freedom of speech is now a right for all, too often it is those with the loudest voices and with the biggest platform who benefit from it most.

Whilst this may be challenging to understand, it is the reality with which we are confronted. It is exactly why students’ unions, as democratic organisations and regulated charities, try to ensure a balance of views and debate. In fact, we go further than many other organisations to ensure freedom of speech is protected. Our much-criticised external speakers policies are used by unions to mitigate the risks that come with hosting certain speakers. The vast majority of these policies are used to ensure students hear balanced views, and to make sure that everybody is able to participate in debate. If there were to be an incident on campus relating to an external speaker event organised by a students’ union or student society, the Charity Commission would require proof that appropriate safety procedures had been followed. It would check that all risks had been considered in the process of booking a speaker or event.

When we talk about keeping students safe, it is not just rhetoric. This isn’t about protecting students from ideas they might not agree with. It is not about “wrapping them up in cotton wool.” The NUS’ "No Platform for fascists and racists" policy—which currently applies to five organisations—was first introduced in 1974. That same year Kevin Gately, a second-year student from Warwick University, was killed during a confrontation between the National Front and anti-fascist protestors. Fascism is a vicious and hateful ideology that must always be challenged. We do that by ensuring it cannot rear its head on our watch or in our union. The NUS’ own “No Platform for fascists and racists” policy applies to the national Union alone, not individual students’ unions, which set their own policies in this area. Every students’ union is autonomous, with its own democratic procedures and elected officers.

If a particular students’ union decides not to invite a speaker—which is not the same as a “ban” or a “boycott,” or even "no-platforming"—that is for their students to decide and is their decision to take through a democratic vote.

I am proud as President of the NUS that we hold several democratic events every year with constructive, impassioned and difficult debates on a whole range of issues affecting millions of students across the UK. I am proud that in doing so we encourage delegates to be respectful of each other, particularly around gender, sexuality, race and religious background. That respect what we aim to achieve by creating “safe spaces”—that and only that. I will always defend our processes and policies if they mean that more people can take part in debate and have their voices heard.

The freedom to learn, the freedom to speak, the freedom to debate—these are all rights that we must protect for everyone, not just a few who shout the loudest. Conflating our legal responsibilities under external speakers policies with our decision to challenge fascism by not allowing it room to grow is both unhelpful and unwise. We are always up for rigorous debate but I will continue to stand up for my members. They are simply doing their jobs—keeping students safe and ensuring freedom of speech is protected for all.