Photo: Chris Radburn/PA Wire/PA Images
One of the most popular maxims about free speech wasn’t actually said by Voltaire in the eighteenth century, but by the little-known Evelyn Beatrice Hall, a Kentish writer, in 1906. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” was how Hall pithily phrased the philosopher’s view of the importance of free speech. The Enlightenment idealism Hall’s quote captures was an important influence on the development of western political and academic culture. But does it remain so? Are universities still institutions of challenging ideas, places where scholars can freely express opinions?
Many students and academics today argue that campuses should be places where those of minority backgrounds are safe from abuse. Universities should be safe spaces, where students have the right not to be offended by racism and homophobia. But this view is far from the consensus. Others argue instead that universities should be constantly exposing students to shocking concepts, and that only those who incite violence should be banned. You will be aware of the accusations from much of the press and from the “alt-right”: students have become “snowflakes,” fragile and oversensitive to dissenting opinion.
The National Union of Students has an official list of six organisations, such as the BNP and l-Muhajiroun, which it bans from being given a platform to speak. Amatey Doku, Vice-President of the NUS, told me: “We support freedom of speech, thought and expression. But we oppose those who attempt to utilise this ‘freedom’ in order to remove the freedoms of others.”
In the last two years in this country, there has been an increase in the number of incidents of no-platforming. The NUS says its policy is “narrow and specific,” but many public figures disagree. Peter Tatchell, a veteran human rights activist, and Nick Cohen, journalist and commentator, have criticised individual students’ unions for willfully misinterpreting the NUS guidance and no-platforming speakers who simply don’t agree with their political agenda. In 2016, the Telegraph reported 148 bans levelled against speakers, newspapers and student societies over the previous three years. The debate is complicated by lazy reporting from newspapers: although some claimed both Boris Johnson and Nick Lowles were no-platformed, the stories were in fact false.
The recent no-platforming of Richard Dawkins, albeit in America, has yet again brought the free speech issue into the public consciousness. Last month KPFA Radio, an NPR station in Berkeley, California, cancelled a talk from Richard Dawkins due to his “abusive… tweets and other comments on Islam.” Dawkins, so strong an atheist that he describes himself as an “anti-theist,” responded on his website, saying “I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass?” The story made international headlines and was used as further evidence for the existence of a “snowflake generation.” While not a student radio station, Dawkins was "astonished" that he could be no-platformed in Berkeley, the site of historic demonstrations for free speech in the 1960s.
"It does seem to be worse now than it was in the late 80’s"Cohen, whose book Whats Left: How The Left Lost Its Way, was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize in 2008, has experienced first-hand the heated atmosphere of campus politics in this country. He mentioned a recent event he took part in at Kings College London; “the atmosphere was virtually dictatorial. It was not like an institution of democracy.”
“It varies hugely from university to university,” he said, when asked about how big a problem he thought censorship was becoming. He pointed out that it wasn't just students; some of the academics supported no-platforming, too.
Cohen passionately made the point, that for students, “you haven't really got any other power apart from free speech.” For a generation battered by sky-high property prices and tuition fees, radical speech and ideas are some of the only tools students have to challenge elites. Cohen argued that no-platforming puts this at risk: “It does seem to be worse now than it was in the late 80’s. I don’t know how you measure it. Academics tell me it's far worse.”
The free speech debate has polarised activists on the left, and some surprising figures have had a tough time in the turbulent atmosphere of campus politics . You may not think that Peter Tatchell would be a controversial figure in the LGBT community. He was quick to make sure his experiences were represented fairly when he spoke to me on the phone: “Well, first of all, make sure you don't repeat the mistakes made [elsewhere in the press]. I have not been no-platformed.”
I responded that I was aware of what happened on his visit to Canterbury Christ Church University; an LGBT student representative pulled out of the event as a result of Tatchell's supposedly racist and transphobic views.
“It could be interpreted in two ways: either she was saying she wasn't going to participate if I was going to be there, or she was trying to subtly pressure the university authorities to drop me in favour of her.” Choosing his words carefully, Tatchell went to on clarify his position. “There is a trend at some universities to use the no-platform and safe space policies to restrict speakers, and close down debates.”
Keen to impress his “red lines” of free expression on me, Tatchell continued. “There are only three legitimate grounds for restricting free speech. First, if a person makes untrue, damaging allegations. Such as [saying that] the person is a tax fraudster or a rapist. Second, if a person engages in threats, menaces and harassments. And third, if they incite violence. If you suppress ideas, they don’t go away. They fester, and in fact, [their proponents] can then claim the mantle of martyrdom. Whereas if you shine a light on bigoted ideas, in most cases the bigoted person will emerge discredited. The best way to counter bad ideas is with good ideas.”
"Affording those with harmful and offensive views a platform helps them in their search for credibility"“In some respects, the no-platform and safe space policies are well intended,” Tatchell admitted, and “not as widespread as some people claim.”
The campaigner acknowledged that “the idea is to stop extremists who advocate violence, and other human rights abuses. The motivation is to ensure that BME students are not subjected to racist abuse and tirades.”
Doku, who in addition to his role at the NUS was formerly President of Cambridge University Students’ Union, went one step further in his argument: “safe spaces are key to university life, it’s one of the very few spaces for [minority students] to share experiences and support one another without fear. The media are very quick to pick out the most extreme cases.”
“I’ve heard ‘echo chamber’ used as a smear on safe spaces,” Doku pointed out, “but this couldn’t be any further from the truth. Safe spaces encourage diverse opinions and ways to better understand others who do not share your view point. It just all happens somewhere respectful and equitable.” The NUS Vice-President takes a nuanced view of the power dynamics within university debates, pointing out how they often implicitly privilege people who are white, cis-gender, or from a financially well-off background.
“I think we’re seeing students recognising that ‘free and open debate’ isn’t always clear cut. Public forums and debates are more often than not intended for and suit people from certain backgrounds with certain experiences.” He argued that “affording those with harmful and offensive views a platform helps them in their search for credibility to promote their messages of hate.”
However well-intended it is, Nick Cohen is bullish on the trend’s worrying consequences. “What fascinates me”, he said, “is that they target people on the Left, like feminists are targeted very, very heavily.” He referenced Julie Bindel and Germaine Greer as examples of figures who “once wrote something disobliging about transsexual people. So that’s it, they're out.”
So who’s right? Which side of the debate should we be on? Well, students are already challenged every day, especially BME and LGBT students, whose lived experiences are continually delegitimised. Censorship at universities does not “coddle” the British mind, as much as some commentators protest that it does. But universities must be what Professor Mary Beard has called “vertiginously risky.” This means that ideas which shock, scare, and provoke should be constantly discussed, building in a sense of risk to education.
Of course, universities have a responsibility to provide a safety net for their students, to allow them to voice opinions without the threat of violence. However, as Tatchell said, viewpoints do not go away just because people ignore them (just look at the shock electoral earthquakes of 2016 for evidence of this). Instead of retreating into jargon, twitter arguments and arrogance, students should be more willing to take positive action to challenge a world which will not always see things the same way as us.
