BBC article - Free speech plan to tackle 'silencing' views on campus

[Pluckedpencil]

This is an article today on the BBC website. Does anyone know what it stems from? It feels like trans activism, but I'm not sure.

www.bbc.com/news/education-55995979

Gender is part of it but also sparked by the "decolonisation" of the curriculum. Interestingly in the same letter Gavin Williamson specifically asked the OfS to tackle antisemitism.

Analysis and link to full letter here: wonkhe.com/blogs/ofs-sets-off-in-a-new-direction-with-a-new-chair/

Gender is part of it but also sparked by the "decolonisation" of the curriculum. Interestingly in the same letter Gavin Williamson specifically asked the OfS to tackle antisemitism

Surely free speech should be just that - and people should be allowed to express their views on campus about anything without being cancelled.

I wonder where that line would be drawn?

@chomalungma

Gender is part of it but also sparked by the "decolonisation" of the curriculum. Interestingly in the same letter Gavin Williamson specifically asked the OfS to tackle antisemitism

Surely free speech should be just that - and people should be allowed to express their views on campus about anything without being cancelled.

I wonder where that line would be drawn?

But why can't people be no-platformed? Like what is wrong with that?

Speakers are invited to campus as GUESTS not summonsed; not paid to appear. So let's say it's Tommy Robinson or David Icke or David Irving. Someone in the Young Conservatives society decides to invite them to make a point.
At the moment, the Students' Union are free to pass a motion to no-platform Tommy Robinson et al for antisemitism or other racist hate speech.

What recourse would there be for Jewish, Black, Muslim -- or any vulnerable students without no platform? Freedom of speech (which, NB, is not actually a pricinple of English law) is no guarantee of freedom of reach.

At the moment, the Students' Union are free to pass a motion to no-platform Tommy Robinson et al for antisemitism or other racist hate speech

Under this leglisation, Tommy Robinson would be able to sue for compensation for being deplatformed.

@chomalungma

At the moment, the Students' Union are free to pass a motion to no-platform Tommy Robinson et al for antisemitism or other racist hate speech

Under this leglisation, Tommy Robinson would be able to sue for compensation for being deplatformed.

exactly, it's preposterous. The fact that universities are publicly funded (which is only partially true anyway) makes no difference either there are lots of venues in the country that are publicly funded (and, moreover, far more open to the public like courtrooms and the house of commons, or even doctors' surgeries and hospitals or public parks...) where people can be banned, uninvited from or asked to leave if they act in a way that is not appropriate.

If you believe in freedom of speech then you believe in Tommy Robinson's freedom to speak. You don't have to listen or agree.

There are specific laws which cover hate speech, incitement etc.

@CheddarGorgeous

If you believe in freedom of speech then you believe in Tommy Robinson's freedom to speak. You don't have to listen or agree.

There are specific laws which cover hate speech, incitement etc.

but he doesn't have the right to appear on campus and have a PLATFORM for his speech, any more than you do. Universities should be allowed to choose whom they invite to campus.

Hate speech is already illegal, yes, but by the point someone breaks that law the deed is already done -- you can't unring a bell. Tommy Robinson has also demonstrated he has no intention of following such laws anyway.

I get the sense that this is trying to stem the woke cancel culture and view it as a good thing. I believe strongly in freedom of speech - whether I agree with the view expressed, or not - and this should help support it. Well, fingers crossed anyway.

No platforming stifles debate, meaning issues are aired in an echo chamber. Challenging distasteful views in the open is the better way to combat them than virtue signalling no-platforming

Freedom of speech is so important, yet deeply problematic.

We've all seen what happens to society when people are given freedom of speech - as they have been with the rise of the internet and social media. Back in "the good old days" the ignorant and the racists and the fascists were in effect muted by the fact no "proper" media would give them a hearing. Along comes Twitter and now anyone can say anything about anyone.

Yet without free speech we don't know what the divisions in our country are. We live in a "PC" bubble where people all seem sane. We blithely carry on not realising there are millions of people who hold very different views and who in the main do so because they are being crapped on by society.

The assumption so often is that banning people from speaking means banning those people we despise from speaking. Yet if the power to ban speakers was on the other foot, it would be "worthy" or "good" people who were banned. If the price of free speech means Tony Robinson appears at a uni, we have to pay it. There are plenty of global and historic examples of what happens without free speech. It's a double edged principle but absolutely essential to free society imo

but he doesn't have the right to appear on campus and have a PLATFORM for his speech, any more than you do. Universities should be allowed to choose whom they invite to campus.

No of course he doesn't. But universities don't have a single, central voice through which invitations are issued, events are organised by departments, student societies etc. Once a university or SU receives a request from academics or students to hold an event that includes a controversial speaker, if they deny that request on the grounds that they are worried that some people might be "upset" or "feel unsafe" then that's shutting down freedom of speech.

But isn’t the answer to invite Tommy Robinson and then allow a civilised debate on his views. Not screaming and shouting and no platforming.
It helps to know people like Tommy Robinson arguments about whatever so they can be countered by other arguments.
In 10 years time it might be the views of the pro-no-platform students that are threatened with no-platforming so this protects their opinions too.
Be careful what you wish for springs to mind.
I agree with Gavin and think this is a good step forward.

“Gender” is a lot of it. Many women have been cancelled for saying that men cannot be women, and stating that women’s rights are being removed. Many people have been told research on these matters (eg on detransitioners) cannot be , and the shouting down of feminist opinions is par for the course. When even biologists cannot speak about reality there is a problem. When historians cannot look at the past, there is a problem. When propaganda becomes the truth there is a problem.

If you don’t hear or don’t want to hear the other sides arguments, you can’t hone and refine your own to counter them.
A good debater could argue a point for either side.
I always try and understand an argument from the other point of view especially if I don’t understand it. It helps me decide what I really think about something and helps me parent teenagers

Also, a survey of students' unions in December 2020 showed that only 0.06% of events with an external speaker were cancelled - mainly for failing to follow basic administrative processes.

This could be interpreted in many ways - universities don't shut down freedom of speech, or "problematic" speakers are never invited in the first place, or the reporting is flawed.

The issue is wider - for example gender critical academics not speaking out about their views because of fear of backlash. Or "controversial" views or texts being removed from the curriculum. Or difficult issues not being addressed in research proposals.

but he doesn't have the right to appear on campus and have a PLATFORM for his speech, any more than you do. Universities should be allowed to choose whom they invite to campus

It's not about his rights, but about the rights of those who are part of campus communities. Currently academics or student societies are inviting speakers to campus (and, yes, the issue of gender is the most prominent one here, with the speakers mainly feminist women), only to be forced by (sometimes physical) threats to withdraw the invitations.

@Hereward1332

No platforming stifles debate, meaning issues are aired in an echo chamber. Challenging distasteful views in the open is the better way to combat them than virtue signalling no-platforming

This is what I was taught at school. I haven't seen much that makes me disagree with it. I find some people's viewpoints repugnant, and what they advocate is actively harmful to me, but if you start banning people it a) drives it underground where you can't get a proper handle on it, b) you don't get the chance to challenge them, c) you don't expose their supporters to a plurality of views (persuasion works both ways) and d) society's ability to handle /model constructive, respectful public discourse dies a death.

1. Who gets to decide?
2. What happens when the political winds change and you're no longer the "good" side?

Any rules implemented can be used against either side. Trans rights vs women's rights as an example.

Yes snoozy, who gets to decide. I think this about the statue debate too. People that support pulling down statues in a mob frenzy without local community debate will do a hard hand break turn when it is their favoured statue being pulled down by an equally frenzied mob in the future.
How can we know that the things we all think now won’t be considered extremely ignorant in 50 or 100 years time. We don’t.
Also TWAW seems to be the prevailing point of view on campuses at the moment, but what if that stops being the case and TWATW becomes the majority thinking. Should universities no platform those that think TWAW?
Freedom of speech says no of course not. We should always be able to hear these arguments and we are then free to argue for or against them.

I have been to a lecture on campus where protests took place for days before the speaker arrived. Security were in the actual lecture theatre and students were banging on the fire exits and it kicked off big time.

It was an absolute shitshow and walking through a shouting screaming crowd to get to the lecture theatre was awful. Did I admire the speaker? No not at all but he had to engage intellectually in that debate. Odious and grotesque creature that he was. He was getting headlines nationally and internationally at the time. Those headlines were not stopping just because we would all have liked him to just go away. It was a chance to challenge him.

The Nick Griffin example is always a good one (once leader of the far right racist BNP). He was invited to appear on Question Time. Everyone was outraged - giving a platform to a known racist! His appearance ended his career - he lost all credibility, coming over as evasive, smirking and unable to answer questions. His appearance was derided, even by his own supporters.
University students must be exposed to opposing views and learn to argue with them. It's telling that many of those being no platformed are women arguing that the definition of a woman is adult human female and that children below the age of consent should not be given puberty stopping drugs.

Free speech means that everyone has the opportunity to air their views, no matter how much we might personally disagree with those views. The only limits should be on people encouraging crime.

The way I look at it is, if I can't present a convincing and coherent argument to counter the views of a white supremacist, or conspiracy theory nut, or an Islamist, or a trans activist, or any other group, then maybe my own thinking is not well-developed enough.

How do they de-radicalise muslims? By talking to them and showing them how wrong they are. How do they rehabilitate rapists? By talking to them and showing them how wrong they are. Ignoring people, deplatforming people, taking them off social media, just leads them to speak only with people who agree with them, reinforcing their views.

University students must be exposed to opposing views and learn to argue with them.

This ⬆️

We do young people no favours by not teaching them how to analyse, think, argue, debate and be resilient.

I think children should be taught both sides of any argument and how to argue them, like traditional debating societies. You should be given any point of view and be able to argue it’s merits whether that be pro or anti nuclear, pro or anti meat eating, pro or anti males being able to compete in female sporting categories. And a successful debater would give no clue to the audience which side he or she really thinks.
Universities should be encouraging their students to think like this not no-debate, de-platforming etc