Campus free speech – how far does it go?
A thoughtless and self-indulgent decision.”
“Providing publicity for fascists risks not just freedom of speech, but all human rights…and ultimately millions of lives.”
“I think it's patronising to suggest that Oxford students aren't intelligent enough to debate with these people.”
These are a few reactions to the decision by the Oxford Union in November 2007 to host a debate including leader of the BNP Nick Griffin, and historian David Irving, jailed in 2006 for denying the holocaust.
The Oxford Union, one of the world’s most prestigious debating societies, refused to withdraw the invitations, and the debate was accompanied by significant disapproval and indignation from public figures, the media and students.
Rightly or wrongly, the issue became symbolic of a wider debate surrounding extremism and free speech in universities. The question of whether we can legitimately criticize the union for its decision became shorthand for whether security or freedom of speech is more important. The conflict came down to a perceived irreconcilability of a lack of tolerance for extremist views, and a respect for the principal of free speech. People came down on one side or the other.
So what is the connection between this incident at Oxford University and the problem of campus extremism? Was giving two renowned racists a prestigious platform on which to speak the right one? If so, what are the consequences? If not, what precedent does it set?
Many believed the Oxford Union’s invitation was a cynical publicity-seeking ploy. MP Dr Julian Lewis resigned his membership of the debating union in protest, calling it a ‘self-indulgent decision’. He said to the BBC: “I think there are people who are confusing this with an issue of free speech. It's not an issue of free speech to offer someone a privileged platform from a prestige organisation.”
However, others condemned or defended the decision entirely on the basis of free speech. Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, who spoke at the same debate, said it is the "views of these extremists which are a disgrace" and "not their right to hold their views".
“The measure of our country's respect for free expression is our willingness to allow it for the most objectionable and offensive lawful speech,” he said, “not just for those with whom we agree."
they will be seen as a legitimate alternative.”
The National Union of Students (NUS) however criticized the Oxford Union on the basis of the ‘No Platform’ Policy. Gemma Tumlety, president of the NUS, argues: "[Griffin and Irving] have no place in our multicultural society. NUS utterly opposes racism and fascism wherever it arises.” The NUS, prior to the event, campaigned ‘to ensure that they are not given a platform’.
We may well criticise the decision by the Oxford Union as being a misguided or selfish one, that could put people’s safety at risk for the sake of publicity, but can we really argue that because the views are despicable to us, they shouldn’t be allowed to have a platform?
The No Platform policy, to which most Students’ Unions are signed up, believes we can and must. No Platform, says the NUS which adopted the policy in the early 1990s, means excluding fascists from all debate.
“NUS believes its policy denies fascists the opportunity to gain political credibility. If the BNP is allowed to share a stage with Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and other responsible political parties they will be seen as a legitimate alternative. Yet they are only an alternative for those who support violence, racism and extremism.”
But No Platform is not supported by everyone. Some groups believe such policies threaten academic freedom, and thereby undermine the very nature of a university.
Academics For Academic Freedom is a campaign for lecturers, academic-related staff and researchers who believe in open debate and want to make a public statement ‘in favour of unimpeded enquiry and expression’. The leader of the student wing of this group believes that open debate is something that the No Platform policy can and does stifle.
For this reason he led a revolt against the No Platform Policy at the University of East Anglia. Consequently, the union recently passed a motion against No Platform with a 75% majority. The motion stated that ‘in order to discredit illiberal, extremist or racist ideologies, it is necessary openly to confront these ideas and not merely pretend they do not exist.’
Battles within unions where the No Platform is still in place are relatively common. At Leeds University for example, both the student newspaper and TV station published or aired interviews with Nick Griffin. In February 2007, attempts were made at Leeds to abolish No Platform but were defeated by the Union’s Council. The students at Keele University also attempted to revoke No Platform and failed.
