tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/no-platform-25216/articlesNo Platform – The Conversation2021-03-30T14:03:56Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1570132021-03-30T14:03:56Z2021-03-30T14:03:56ZFree speech on campus: universities need to create ‘safe but critical’ spaces for debate – here’s how they can do it<p>The issue of free speech in universities continues to plague UK campuses. Earlier this year, the government announced “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-proposals-to-strengthen-free-speech-at-universities">landmark proposals</a>” to tackle the issue, including appointing a “free speech tsar” and giving the Office for Students powers to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-proposals-to-strengthen-free-speech-at-universities">sanction institutions</a> deemed to be doing too little to promote free speech and academic freedom.</p>
<p>But hot-button issues from perceived <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/06/university-forced-apologise-compensate-phd-student-transphobic/">transphobia</a> to <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/25/british-law-professor-under-fire-over-islamophobic-content">Islamophobia</a> continue to plague university campuses and it’s not clear the government’s plans will do much to help.</p>
<p>Some of the proposals <a href="https://wonkhe.com/blogs/free-speech-proposals-are-a-breakdown-of-trust-and-confidence/">replicate</a> existing legal requirements on universities. Others, like the proposal to extend free speech requirements to student unions, would have a much bigger impact because it would prevent unions from denying platforms to people with lawful views that they don’t like.</p>
<p>But perhaps the biggest consequence of these plans is how they’ll affect the sector’s reputation. Far from restoring confidence in universities, it’s likely this intervention will just inflame longstanding moral outrage about universities failing to be bastions of liberal democracy. As <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/freedom-speech-universities-alison-scott-baumann-simon-perfect/10.4324/9780429289835">we argue</a> in our new book, Freedom of Speech in Universities: Islam, Charities and Counter-terrorism, there’s a popular binary narrative that accuses universities and students either of unfairly restricting legitimate free speech, or of giving too much freedom to extremists (particularly Muslim ones). </p>
<h2>The so-called free speech crisis</h2>
<p>Indeed, according to a <a href="https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/cmsfiles/articles/research/YouGov-Theos---Universities-free-speech-2019.xlsx">2019 poll by Theos</a>, the religion and society think tank, 52% of adults think that free speech is under threat in universities, and 29% think that “Islamic extremism” is common on campus. Neither assumption is accurate. According to the <a href="https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/860e26e2-63e7-47eb-84e0-49100788009c/ofs2019_22.pdf">Office for Students</a>, in 2017-18 only a tiny number of referrals (15) were made by English universities to Prevent, the deradicalisation programme. In the same year, out of 62,094 requests for external speakers, only 53 were rejected. High-profile incidents of student no-platforming do not reflect the huge number of speaker events which go ahead every year unimpeded.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1361661217065033730"}"></div></p>
<p>Though free speech isn’t in a major crisis on campus, that doesn’t mean there aren’t issues that should be taken seriously. Survey evidence <a href="https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/freedom-of-expression-in-uk-universities.pdf">suggests that</a> a significant minority of right-leaning students feel unable to express their views as freely as they would like on campus. As our research shows, there are structural factors which push universities and student unions towards being cautious. </p>
<p>One of those issues is the <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/439598/prevent-duty-departmental-advice-v6.pdf">Prevent Duty</a>, the requirement on universities to identify people at risk of radicalisation into terrorism and to report them to the authorities. Prevent relies on ordinary, untrained people to spot radicalisation. This means that many, particularly those with socially conservative views, are at risk of being wrongly labelled extremists. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/islam-on-campus-9780198846789?cc=us&lang=en&">major project</a>, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, looks at free speech in relation to Islam and the experiences of Muslims on campus. Led by Alison Scott-Baumann in 2015-18, over half of the 253 students and staff (Muslim and non-Muslim) who were interviewed commented negatively about Prevent or described it as chilling free speech. Some said they needed to self-censor in order to avoid arousing false suspicion of extremism.</p>
<p>Charity law (which affects student unions because they’re considered charities) can also inhibit speech on campus. As student unions have been regulated by the Charity Commission since 2010, the law requires unions to ensure their activities don’t risk damaging their reputations. Charity Commission <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/protecting-charities-from-abuse-for-extremist-purposes/chapter-5-protecting-charities-from-abuse-for-extremist-purposes">guidance</a> also requires charities, including unions, to be cautious about or even avoid hosting views that, though controversial, “might fall well below the criminal threshold”. </p>
<p>Our interviews with student union managers in 2016-17 found that some have felt forced to be wary, turning down requests for potentially controversial (though lawful) speakers in fear of breaching charity law. One manager described these charity law requirements as “clipping our wings” on free speech and making him “risk-averse” regarding speakers: “I say ‘no’ more than ‘yes’ these days, it’s disappointing.”</p>
<p>We also found that, while the Charity Commission is generally a light-touch regulator, when it has intervened it has pushed some student unions to avoid controversial speakers. The government’s proposal to make student unions subject to the free speech legal requirement fails to address the fact that charity law would continue to push them in the opposite direction.</p>
<h2>How to fix the problem</h2>
<p>University managers need to respond to these structural issues. In terms of Prevent specifically, there should be transparent, regular dialogue with Muslim students and staff to help address any concerns about the programme. Managers should also encourage student unions to be bold and host controversial speakers if they’re requested, rather than being unnecessarily cautious.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Person with blue tape over their mouths holds finger to lips" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390400/original/file-20210318-19-1qdvoef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390400/original/file-20210318-19-1qdvoef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390400/original/file-20210318-19-1qdvoef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390400/original/file-20210318-19-1qdvoef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390400/original/file-20210318-19-1qdvoef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390400/original/file-20210318-19-1qdvoef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390400/original/file-20210318-19-1qdvoef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Universities’ reputations hinge on pushing back against damaging narratives about free speech.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/censored-woman-blue-tape-on-mouth-3366712">Stefan Redel/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But beyond this, universities should be far more proactive in creating opportunities for students in all disciplines to engage in rigorous debate about relevant controversial issues. Our book explains how lecturers can create a “community of inquiry” in the classroom – a space for frank debate, where participants agree ground rules at the outset and thus take ownership of the debating process.</p>
<p>Finally, universities need to push back against the damaging narratives that undermine their reputation. This in part means better explaining how they’re handling free speech and difficult debate. Rather than the simplistic choice between more or less free speech, we argue there are in fact four options: </p>
<ul>
<li>libertarian (where there are no constraints at all on language or content as long as both are lawful);</li>
<li>liberal (where free speech on any topic is upheld as far as lawfully possible, but the most offensive language is avoided);</li>
<li>guarded liberal (where some restrictions may be in place); and,</li>
<li>no-platforming (where particular ideas or speakers are denied a platform).</li>
</ul>
<p>Universities should take the liberal approach by default, although it might occasionally be reasonable to use different approaches for particularly controversial topics. Either way, by using this model flexibly and transparently in conversations with event organisers, universities can explain which approach they have used and why. </p>
<p>Only through university-led reforms like these can we address the issues chilling speech on campus. The government’s sanctions-heavy approach will achieve little apart from fostering more needless outrage.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157013/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alison Scott-Baumann has received funding from AHRC. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Perfect is a Researcher at Theos, the religion and society think tank.</span></em></p>Far from restoring confidence in these institutions, it’s likely interventions will just inflame moral outrageAlison Scott-Baumann, Professor of Society & Belief, SOAS, University of LondonSimon Perfect, Tutor, SOAS, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1333792020-03-11T14:23:10Z2020-03-11T14:23:10ZSpinoza and ‘no platforming’: Enlightenment thinker would have seen it as motivated by ambition rather than fear<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319889/original/file-20200311-116255-1xyj5ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C10%2C1376%2C1230&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Baruch Spinoza, one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Unknown artist via Wikimedia Commons</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The recent “no-platforming” of social historian <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-51737206">Selina Todd</a> and former Conservative MP <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-51768634">Amber Rudd</a> has reignited the debate about protecting free speech in universities. Both had their invited lectures cancelled at the last minute on the grounds of previous public statements with which the organisers disagreed. </p>
<p>Many people <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/08/censoring-dangerous-ideas-is-itself-dangerous-no-platforming-prevent">have interpreted</a> these acts as hostile behaviour aimed at silencing certain views. But is this primarily about free speech?</p>
<p>The debate about no-platforming and “cancel culture” has largely revolved around free speech and the question of whether it is ever right to deny it. The <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/amber-rudd-oxford-university-event-cancelled-students-no-platforming-free-speech-gavin-williamson-a9381091.html">suggestion is</a> that those who cancel such events want to deny the freedom of speech of individuals who they take to be objectionable. </p>
<p>Most of us surely agree that freedom of speech should sometimes be secondary to considerations of the harm caused by certain forms of speech – so the question is about what kinds of harm offer a legitimate reason to deny someone a public platform. Since people perceive harm in many different ways, this question is particularly difficult to resolve.</p>
<p>But perhaps the organisers who cancelled these events were not motivated by the desire to deny freedom of speech at all. Todd and Rudd are prominent people in positions of authority – so cancelling their events, while causing a public splash, is unlikely to dent their freedom to speak on these or other issues at other times and in different forums. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/two-arguments-to-help-decide-whether-to-cancel-someone-and-their-work-128411">Two arguments to help decide whether to 'cancel' someone and their work</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But these acts have a significant effect on others, who may feel unable to speak on certain issues from fear of similar treatment. Perhaps the no-platformers cancelled Todd and Rudd, not because they wanted to deny them their freedom to speak, but because they didn’t want to listen to them. Perhaps they were motivated not by a rational consideration of potential harm, but by an emotion: the desire not to listen to something with which they disagree.</p>
<h2>Ambitious mind</h2>
<p>The 17th-century Dutch philosopher <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/">Baruch Spinoza</a> has a name for this emotion: ambition. Nowadays we think of ambition as the desire to succeed in one’s career. But in the 17th century, ambition was recognised to be a far more pernicious – and far more political – emotion. As Spinoza wrote in his <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ethics-by-Spinoza">Ethics (1677)</a>, ambition is the desire that everyone should feel the way I do: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Each of us strives, so far as he can, that everyone should love what he loves, and hate what he hates… Each of us, by his nature, wants the others to live according to his temperament; when all alike want this, they are alike an obstacle to one another. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Spinoza sees the emotions, or “passions”, as naturally arising from our interactions with one another and the world. We strive to do things that make us feel joy – an increase in our power to exist and flourish – and we strive to avoid things that make us feel sad or cause a decrease in our power.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319890/original/file-20200311-116291-1lmmgiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319890/original/file-20200311-116291-1lmmgiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319890/original/file-20200311-116291-1lmmgiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319890/original/file-20200311-116291-1lmmgiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319890/original/file-20200311-116291-1lmmgiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319890/original/file-20200311-116291-1lmmgiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319890/original/file-20200311-116291-1lmmgiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319890/original/file-20200311-116291-1lmmgiw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Handwritten manuscript of ‘Ethica’ by Baruch de Spinoza.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Biblioteca Vaticana</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We naturally desire and love what we believe others desire and love. It is therefore natural that we want others to love what we do and think what we think. For if others admire and approve of our actions and feelings, then we will feel a greater pleasure – with a concomitant increase of power – in ourselves. </p>
<p>Ambition is not simply wanting to feel esteemed – it is wanting others to love and hate exactly what we love and hate. It is the desire to cause others to think and feel exactly as we do. It is the desire to “avert from ourselves” those who cannot be convinced to do so – for those dissenters diminish our sense of self-worth.</p>
<h2>Disagreement a threat</h2>
<p>Spinoza would have recognised the desire not to listen to dissenting views as a species of ambition. Disagreement is perceived not as a reasoned difference of views, but as a threat: something that causes sadness and a diminishing of one’s power – something to be avoided at all costs.</p>
<p>Somebody who feels differently threatens our sense of the worthiness of our own feelings, causing a type of sadness. Spinoza stresses that we strive to “destroy” whatever we imagine will lead to sadness. Thus ambition leads to a desire to change people’s views, often through hostile, exclusionary, destructive behaviours. </p>
<p>Not only that, but someone in the grip of ambition is likely to be immune to rational argument. Spinoza argues that passions are obstructive to good thinking: reason – on its own – has little power to shift a passion that has a strong hold on us. </p>
<p>Most of us have had negative experiences on social media with people who disagree with us on politically charged questions. Instead of engaging with our arguments, they point out that we are immoral or unfeeling for holding a different view. Really, what our opponents find intolerable is our failure to feel the same about the issue as they do. </p>
<p>Refusing to hear an argument and seeking to silence it is a mild form of no-platforming, motivated not by the desire to quash free speech, but by ambition. Our failure to share in the political feelings of others leads them to experience a loss of power, and they respond by attacking the cause of the loss. Ambition makes rational debate impossible, even when our freedom to speak remains perfectly intact.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/133379/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beth Lord has previously received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council for her work on Spinoza.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexander Douglas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s not a case of being afraid of different ideas, more that some people want everyone to think as they do.Beth Lord, Professor of Philosophy, University of AberdeenAlexander Douglas, Lecturer in Philosophy, University of St AndrewsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/945472018-04-06T12:39:05Z2018-04-06T12:39:05ZWhy ‘safe spaces’ at universities are a threat to free speech<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213568/original/file-20180406-125161-9f7tkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/panorama-historic-cloisters-glasgow-university-dramatic-312100790">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The idea of universities being a “<a href="http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/what-is-a-safe-space/">safe space</a>” was until recently an issue that was unique to the US. Now the UK has experienced an upswing in incidents in which so-called “safe space” policies have reportedly threatened the right to free speech in British universities.</p>
<p>Closely tied to the concept of “<a href="http://freespeechdebate.com/discuss/ten-arguments-for-and-against-no-platforming/">no-platforming</a>” – where speakers are denied the opportunity to even speak – several highly publicised safe space cases have come to light, including <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/edinburgh-university-student-imogen-wilson-accused-of-violating-safe-space-rules-for-raising-hand-a6967191.html">the ejection of a student from a meeting</a> for raising her hand, the banning of speakers such as feminist <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2015/10/what-row-over-banning-germaine-greer-really-about">Germaine Greer</a>, secularist <a href="https://www.warwicksu.com/news/article/WarwickAtheists/Maryam-Namazie-barred-from-speaking-at-The-University-of-Warwick/">Maryam Namazie</a>, and equal rights campaigner <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/13/peter-tatchell-snubbed-students-free-speech-veteran-gay-rights-activist">Peter Tatchell</a>, and the introduction of “safe space marshals” to monitor behaviour at debates. </p>
<p>But the concept of a safe space, whereby those with distasteful or offensive views are prevented from speaking at a university, is fundamentally at odds with the rigorous intellectual exchange central to the idea of the academy itself.</p>
<p>In 2016, John Ellison, the University of Chicago’s dean of students, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/us/university-of-chicago-strikes-back-against-campus-political-correctness.html">wrote</a> to the new intake:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Though the opinions of a speaker may border on the intolerable, we can only respond effectively to their arguments if we get the opportunity to hear them in the first place.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213571/original/file-20180406-125181-4k2pun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213571/original/file-20180406-125181-4k2pun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213571/original/file-20180406-125181-4k2pun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213571/original/file-20180406-125181-4k2pun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213571/original/file-20180406-125181-4k2pun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213571/original/file-20180406-125181-4k2pun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213571/original/file-20180406-125181-4k2pun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Advocates of safe spaces believe they provide a place where marginalised voices can be heard without discrimination.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/safe-space-sign-rainbow-colors-slight-432341560">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In response, those in favour of safe spaces policies rightfully point out the symbolic and potentially legitimising force given to a speaker when we provide them with a public platform. To them, choosing who is given such a platform within their own institution serves as a justifiable form of <a href="http://reagle.org/joseph/2015/07/counter-speech.html">counter-speech</a>, and aims to send the message that such views are not worth listening to in the first place. How, then, can we hope to resolve these issues?</p>
<h2>What is university for?</h2>
<p>Underlying these debates are disagreements regarding the proper “purpose” of a university. As an institution, the university holds a unique role in society as a place of learning and a forum of intellectual rigour. It comes with its own set of norms and customs, many of which contrast sharply with those of other institutions beyond its gates.</p>
<p>Compared to other environments, such as workplaces or secondary schools, students and academics should (in theory) be encouraged to explore particularly difficult subjects, to take risks regarding emerging areas of research, and to debate some of the most contentious and pertinent issues of our time.</p>
<p>So the safe spaces debate lands squarely upon this question of what a university is actually for. Defenders of the concept of safe spaces cite its noble goal of correcting past injustices for future endeavours – once silenced and marginalised voices are now, via safe spaces, provided with an opportunity to be heard and continue their studies free from harassment or abuse.</p>
<p>Key also to the defence of safe spaces is the idea that vulnerable groups can carve out an area of their host institution in which they get to define their own norms and customs – again something previously denied to those from certain sub-sections of society. “Safe space” is a term long referred to in relation to women-only groups, LGBTQ+ organisations, black and ethnic minority groups, and so on. It allows members to meet and have discussions without the threat of silencing or discrimination from historically dominant groups.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OnbcE8OlzoM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Inferno/YouTube.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Safe v free</h2>
<p>The debate surrounding a “clash” between safe spaces and free speech on campus, concerns itself with the idea that the university itself must be a safe space for all. As this is directly at odds with the raison d'être of the academy as the meeting point of rigorous disagreement, it is clear that universities are suffering from their own identity crisis, aided and abetted by the portrayal of such clashes on social media.</p>
<p>Quite apart from the continued existence of student societies and clubs that set the terms for their own discussions, the issue surrounding those high profile cases of no-platforming tend to extend the boundaries of self-administration and rule-setting across the whole institution.</p>
<p>This reconfiguration of the parameters of the safe space itself has something else in mind – that inviting certain speakers who hold offensive or hateful views in some way perpetuates a hostile environment on the university campus.</p>
<p>What is needed is a common ground set of principles to which all sides must adhere. If universities are truly committed to free speech, this means making a concerted effort to increase representation and taking measures that include marginalised or silenced voices.</p>
<p>It means introducing clear “right of reply” policies, in which controversial speakers are required to have their views challenged, rather than potentially shouted down or allowed to go unquestioned. In terms of legitimisation, this is largely determined by the nature of the invitation itself; including a speaker on a debating panel is one thing, giving them an honorary degree or lecture series another.</p>
<p>Above all, universities need to work harder at enforcing formal measures to tackle discrimination and harassment on campus, as the <a href="https://inews.co.uk/video/we-hate-the-backs-nottingham-trent-students-suspended-after-black-woman-films-racist-chants-from-outside-her-bedroom/">recent hate speech case at Nottingham Trent University</a> has shown. Until such shocking incidents are taken seriously by administrators, it is not clear how we can secure free speech exchange for all students.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94547/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suzanne Whitten does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Safe spaces are fundamentally at odds with the rigorous intellectual exchange central to the idea of a university.Suzanne Whitten, PhD Philosophy Student, Queen's University BelfastLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/769072017-04-30T08:58:44Z2017-04-30T08:58:44ZIsrael, no-platforming – and why there’s no such thing as ‘narrow exceptions’ to campus free speech<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167251/original/file-20170429-12992-1o5gbtr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Too much for some students to bear?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?src=uVRkrstN7SL7L-3da-0Ngw-1-5">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If there’s one place where students are sure to spend time rehearsing arguments <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/jewish-students-no-right-define-ant-semitism-soas-student-union-london-university-school-oriental-a7548036.html">against Israel</a>, then it’s SOAS, the London-based School of Oriental and African Studies (although <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39719314">plenty of universities</a> run a close second). </p>
<p>So you’d expect them to salivate at the chance to tear some juicy bites out of anyone representing Israel – not least a prize catch like Israel’s ambassador to the UK, <a href="http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/mark-regev-tells-soas-israel-isnt-going-anywhere/">Mark Regev</a>, who served as government spokesman during the 2014 Gaza conflict.</p>
<p>And yet when the man himself was delivered to them on a silver platter, how did they respond? They sent him back to the chef, demanding something less spicy.</p>
<p>If so many staff and students around the globe find the Palestinians justified in violent resistance even against ordinary Israeli <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-idUSKCN0SR0WW20151102">civilians</a>, then you’d think they’d gladly help out with a round or two of purely verbal ammunition.</p>
<p>Instead they all went AWOL. No sooner was Regev’s visit announced than were the ever-predictable shouts of “Boycott!” circling the globe. “The environment that Mr Regev would create on our campus for the event is unsafe for us,” <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/25/israeli-ambassador-mark-regev-soas-university-of-london">wrote</a> some Palestinian students to SOAS director Valerie Amos. But Baroness Amos, a veteran human rights expert and former UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, wisely remained unimpressed – and allowed the event to go ahead. </p>
<p>Provocative? Of course. In universities designed for adults, that’s what controversial viewpoints are supposed to be. But unsafe? As it happens, the only person to face the <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium-1.786172">firing line</a> that night was Regev. </p>
<p>I have publicly and unequivocally defended everyone’s right to protest a campus speaker. As <a href="https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/soas-director-urged-to-call-off-israeli-ambassador-s-campus-visit-1.436943">chair</a> of the Regev event, I continued to defend that right, and shall do so in future. But what was the protesters’ aim?</p>
<h2>‘Narrow’ exceptions</h2>
<p>Every time I write something against campus <a href="https://theconversation.com/uc-berkeley-donald-trump-and-the-muddled-ethics-of-no-platforming-72609">no-platforming</a>, I’m told: “We’re entirely in favour of free speech, but some lines must be drawn. A few narrow exceptions won’t harm anyone’s free speech.”</p>
<p>So let’s take a look. Exactly how “narrow” are those “exceptions”?</p>
<p>In an effort to assure me that opposition to Regev was not antisemitic, I was told by protesters that they would equally oppose speakers from regimes like Iran and Saudi Arabia. As it happens, when the former Pakistani dictator <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/23/pakistan-hold-musharraf-accountable-abuses">Pervez Musharraf</a> gave a <a href="https://soasradio.org/speech/episodes/pervez-musharraf-pakistan-politics-and-war-terror">talk</a> at SOAS, pretty much no one protested – let alone on the instantaneous and massive scale that the Jewish state always so magically incites.</p>
<p>Indeed, if the anti-Israel brigade were sincere about their “we oppose all nasty states” credo, speakers sympathetic to upwards of a hundred states would have to be excluded, any number of them far more brutal than Israel.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167252/original/file-20170429-12987-19yddyc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167252/original/file-20170429-12987-19yddyc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167252/original/file-20170429-12987-19yddyc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167252/original/file-20170429-12987-19yddyc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167252/original/file-20170429-12987-19yddyc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167252/original/file-20170429-12987-19yddyc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167252/original/file-20170429-12987-19yddyc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stop talking … I don’t agree.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/240954550?src=S_5EMRI5D8Y-T2Fp_pydOw-1-11&size=medium_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the no-platformers don’t stop there. In a further bid to prove they’ve got nothing against Jews, they tell me that they would also boycott all forms of racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia … Like the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2006/jan/20/classicalmusicandopera">“little list” of the Lord High Executioner</a>, suddenly the “narrow” exceptions grow to encompass the views of a few billion people on the planet.</p>
<p>That’s the absurdity of no-platforming. If we keep the exclusionary grounds genuinely narrow, they become random and arbitrary: we exclude one odious speaker while admitting another. And yet if we do maintain ethical consistency, banning all objectionable worldviews, the list of exclusions balloons beyond any serious boundaries.</p>
<p>A university’s mission, it seems, is not merely to accept the ugly world as it is, but to create a better world. And I agree. The question is whether we create that world by shutting our doors on the bits we dislike.</p>
<p>Being both gay and Jewish, I’d have absolutely no objection to hosting a panel of antisemites or homophobes. To the contrary, they would tempt me to ramp up whichever stereotype confirms their puny worldviews, just for the sheer fun of it.</p>
<p>Rather, what frightens me is the prospect that staff and students have lost the ability to tackle such views. I often put to students a hypothetical question: Should states be free to separate races, on the strict premise that each race gets equal goods, services and opportunities? Of course, such situations rarely exist – separate is <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/05/segregation-now/359813/">rarely equal</a>. Yet aside from the obvious manoeuvre of simply refusing to accept that premise, the students are constantly unable to respond, insisting in a huff that such a policy is “just wrong”.</p>
<p>That’s not reason. It’s sheer assertion. The students had not learned to reason about equality. They had merely been shamed by lecturers and peers into condemning inequality as “obviously” wrong. The most dangerous ideas arise not from stupidity, but from enforced cleverness.</p>
<h2>Power hierarchies</h2>
<p>Another common claim waged to shut down debate is the charge that a speaker embodies some oppressive power hierarchy. After all, endless socially divisive disputes involve <a href="https://leftfootforward.org/2014/11/free-speech-is-a-right-but-a-platform-is-not/">power discrepancies</a>: debates about poverty, immigration, racial profiling, police brutality, theft, violent crime, rape, abortion, education policy, workplace harassment, access to legal representation, or access to health care – and most questions of foreign policy.</p>
<p>But power relations operate on various planes. Israel certainly does impose military might in the Occupied Territories. But for countless other forums – notably <a href="http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/un-and-israel-history-discrimination">the UN</a> and much of Western <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/27/uk-academics-boycott-universities-in-israel-to-fight-for-palestinians-rights">academia</a> – it’s ludicrous and borderline conspiratorial to argue that discursive power dynamics favour Israel. Even on campuses ultimately rejecting boycotts, the fact that the Jewish state has for years remained the only nation subject to such votes speaks volumes about dominant attitudes. </p>
<p>At many academic conferences concerning the Occupation, critics of pro-Palestinian stances are either excluded or invited in the tiniest numbers as sheer tokens of “intellectual balance”. The very act of according equal time to such critics, we are told in the adolescent jargon, would “entrench existing hierarachies”. Yet bullying doesn’t become fair play simply by flaunting a Che Guevara t-shirt. If we were to bar speakers based on real power dynamics within Western universities, friends of Palestine would scarcely endorse no-platforming. </p>
<p>Any number of other claims are made to exclude speakers. Rumours circulated that Regev’s speech was a rigged event. It was even suggested – echoing centuries-old stereotypes of <a href="https://stanfordreview.org/assu-senate-erupts-in-anti-semitism-debate-987d196fe945">Jewish manipulation</a> of communications and media – that the Israeli embassy planned to stuff the room with its own staff.</p>
<p>In reality, I doubt that a single speaker in recent years has confronted the barrage of critical questions fired at Regev. The more usual campus guests are invited precisely because their views echo staff’s and students’ political preferences. Lectures peddled as “critical theory” are often little more than cheerleading sessions. </p>
<p>Universities purport to offer more than an environment of bromidic self-satisfaction – but the insular micro-climates we are increasingly fostering are bad for staff and worse for students.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76907/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eric Heinze is Project Leader of a four-nation European consortium awarded a major NWO-HERA three-year grant, 2016-19, for the research project "Memory Laws in European and Comparative Perspective". He is also a member of the UK Liberal Democrats. </span></em></p>No-platforming is turning supposedly ‘critically minded’ events into adolescent cheerleading sessions.Eric Heinze, Professor of Law, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/549352016-02-25T14:53:26Z2016-02-25T14:53:26ZFour centuries after Galileo was silenced, UK students are still curbing free speech<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112925/original/image-20160225-15150-1115yls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Galileo Galilei was imprisoned for his 'heretical' views.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wellcome Images</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s 400 years since the Catholic Church censored Galileo and denied him a platform for his arguments for the motion of the Earth – a theory now considered entirely uncontroversial and, indeed, part of our understanding of life, the universe and everything. But in those days, with the Inquisition at the height of its powers, heterodoxy was seen as threatening the very fabric of the Church.</p>
<p>I was reminded of the “Galileo Affair” last year, when controversy erupted over <a href="http://manchesterstudentsunion.com/articles/updated-statement-from-the-students-union-05-10-2015">the “No Platform” decision</a> by the executive committee of Manchester University’s Students’ Union to ban the lesbian feminist writer Julie Bindel. She was prevented from speaking at an event on campus called: “From liberation to censorship: does modern feminism have a problem with free speech?” </p>
<p>Bindel’s views on transsexuals – for example in <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/31/gender.weekend7">this Guardian column</a> – which included referring to a male-to-female transsexual as a “man in a dress”, led the Manchester students’ union to ban her (along with her fellow invitee, Milo Yiannopoulos) on the grounds that her presence would: “incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students”. </p>
<p>As Europe lurched towards the <a href="http://www.britannica.com/event/Thirty-Years-War">Thirty Years’ War</a>, the Roman Church certainly had a problem with free speech. On February 26, 1616 Galileo was informed by the pope that the Church had decided that his theory of the Earth’s motion “was formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.” He was ordered “to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it”.</p>
<p>Galileo later complied with a requirement to abjure his opinion. It did not help him much, and he spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Julie Bindel also <a href="http://www.divamag.co.uk/category/news/protesters-picket-diversity-awards.aspx">made a public apology in 2011</a>, for the “tone and content” of her 2004 article in The Guardian in which she wrote that “men disposing of their genitals does not make them women”.</p>
<p>People in all ages have accepted that there are limits to public discourse. There is no unfettered freedom of expression, no right knowingly to utter a false statement, to slander, perjure or shout “fire!” in a crowded theatre. What changes over time and place is what those limits are, who sets them, on what authority and why.</p>
<h2>No platform</h2>
<p>The No Platform policy of the National Union of Students (NUS) is a recent example that has come in for criticism. It applied traditionally to individuals or organisations which the NUS identified as racist or fascist, such as the English Defence League or Hizb-ut-Tahrir, but the application is spreading. Few would defend platforms in British universities for hate speech, incitement to violence, or holocaust deniers such as David Irving, but now Julie Bindel is banned as transphobic and George Galloway as a rape apologist.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"652424249232203776"}"></div></p>
<p>Bindel’s ban was justified by the <a href="http://www.nus.org.uk/en/take-action/liberation-campaigns/">NUS’s LGBTQ Liberation Campaign</a>. Her invitation was <a href="http://manchesterstudentsunion.com/articles/updated-statement-from-the-students-union-05-10-2015">flagged by Manchester’s Student Union</a> executive committee “as potentially in breach of our safe space policy” and refused “based on Bindel’s views and comments towards trans people, which we believe could incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students”. Controversy continues as to whether the ban conformed to the <a href="http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nusdigital/document/documents/17915/2474048df1f844083a5a1a91da3dc5bd/Safe%20Space%20Policy%20ws.pdf">union’s policy</a> and Manchester University’s <a href="http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=11846">Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech</a>.</p>
<h2>Dogma vs debate</h2>
<p>In the case of Galileo’s ban, the traditional thesis of conflict between science and religion regards it as a clear example of open-minded scientists suffering at the hands of dogmatic and authoritarian churchmen. More recently, revisionist historians have argued that the Catholic Church had some justification. </p>
<p>Catholicism had to maintain its authority to interpret scripture as many embraced the Protestant “heresy”. The reformist Pope Urban VIII (like Gorbachev in the last years of the USSR) was under pressure from ideological hardliners, and his theologians and inquisitors were empowered to counter deviance. </p>
<p>Moreover, Galileo repeatedly pushed his luck: his <a href="http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html">Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems</a> of 1632, which precipitated his trial, signally failed to fulfil his promise to put both sides fairly. Given the sectarian divisions and religiously motivated violence that broke out during the English Civil War, we might conclude that Rome was right. Censorship can close down incitements to violence and hatred.</p>
<h2>Beyond freedom and dignity</h2>
<p>What are the parallels today? Will students’ understanding of gender be advanced or retarded if radical opinions (abrasively expressed to be sure) are censored? Should sabbatical officers of student unions have the power to decide who speaks? How much authority does the NUS LGBTQ liberation agenda possess? Above all, why is the NUS expanding its restrictions on free speech and what are the dangers that justify it? </p>
<p>Several student unions <a href="http://www.exeterguild.org/change/ideas/idea390-stopsafespace/">have rejected</a> “No Platform” – and a transgender student whom I know well would prefer a space to engage with Bindel to a space where they are saved from her by the NUS.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"698869926111682564"}"></div></p>
<p>If the Galileo and Bindel affairs are analogous, then history suggests a lesson. I side with historians who conclude that the Catholic Church’s censorship of Copernicanism (and other scientific theories) resulted in <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hs2edDIGCqEC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=Cosmological+discussion+ceased+except+among+the+Jesuits&source=bl&ots=bt0H0RhXYT&sig=dKHtl_YiOuiWIwzMgajwwfCvspU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil3cSYhpPLAhUDwBQKHaqWD9UQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=Cosmological%20discussion%20ceased%20except%20among%20the%20Jesuits&f=false">northern and Protestant Europe overtaking Italy</a> as the centre of innovation in astronomy and physics. </p>
<p>Of course, a lot is at stake in transgender politics today – but so was there back in 1616 concerning the motion of the Earth.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54935/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Pumfrey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The ‘No Platform’ campaign from the National Union of Students is stifling debate on university campuses.Stephen Pumfrey, Senior Lecturer, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.