To think universities should allow “pro-life” groups?

[Mellowfruitfulnessy]

There’s been a few incidents in the news of universities saying that “pro life” groups should be banned because they make women in campus feel “unsafe”.

There was a protest in Exeter today and there’s been similar rumblings elsewhere.

This seems odd to me: it’s fairly standard teaching in Catholicism and the students in the group largely seem to be Christian / non-UK students. Unis are saying these groups are not “inclusive” but if mainstream religious thinking isn’t allowed, isn’t this excluding free speech? Is it really making women feel “unsafe”?

AIBU to say that pro life groups should be allowed on campuses as part of free speech/thinking/religious freedom?

Thanks. Sorry if I was snippy.

And, don’t kid yourself that this is new, in the 90s there would be the pro hunt and hunt sab stalls set up opposite each other, and the antivivisectionist stalls with leaflets of horrifically damaged animals and the pro life ones and the Conservative association and the pro Hamas stalls and the Israel Society and the Alpha Course Christians opposite the LGB stall and the campus territorial army society or whatever, and somehow people managed to avoid the ones they found distasteful, and still not feel like they were “unsafe” or “triggered” or that anyone should be banned

Exactly.
It was common in universities to see all these groups side by side at University, and their posters everywhere. University is a place of education. You don't sit down one side of a debate just because you disagree with it. If you go to University expected to have you mind challenged and opened.
Ridiculous to suggest they are threatening. I walk passed 'Meat is Murder' posters daily and the inference I'm a murderer because I'm not a vegetarian hasn't made me do anything except consider the view.

Those crying out for the pro life group to be shut down clearly are not ready for a university education otherwise they would be able to Marshall their arguments against them better.

Pro-life opinions are also not by any means only held by men or right wingers or religious adherents though. Through a friend with a child with Down’s Syndrome I know a fair number of mothers of disabled children who are pro-life campaigners. Now I disagree fervently with them for all sorts of reasons; but it isn’t by any means an issue that isn’t worthy of serious debate or consideration, as lots of (presumably very young) posters on this thread have said.

We can all agree that harassment, lying and intimidation are not acceptable, and I agree targeted harassment of women is absolutely not okay under any circumstances. But the issue itself is not a simple one, nor for some people held without reason or simply with an agenda to control women or to harass, and many disability rights campaigners have very complex views on this issue, which are not vile or bigoted and should not be dismissed as if they are all going to wave placards and shout outside abortion clinics. I don’t think the issue itself should be automatically banned; what happens when an opinion you care about gets banned because you might share it with some unpleasant people?

Absolutely not, every woman knows they have a right to have a child and there are the student offices/doctors/midwife's who can provide you information about studying while pregnant/with a child or adoption options. What people don't need is someone telling them that they feel they have the right to tell them what to do with their body.

@BubbleCoffee

Who gets to decide? Universities. Just the same as how every other company, institution, or organisation can decide what they deem worthy of platforming.

A university is all its people, not just some leader 'on high'. A university is a diverse group of thousands of adult students, academics and other staff. They are individuals with their own ideas, opinions and beliefs, not a homogeneous lump. All of these people are the university, and this is rightly very different from a hierarchical, corporate environment.

You wouldn't have the town mayor telling the residents they mustn't debate particular topics; it would be beyond their remit and considered patronising and intrusive.

Well, not quite. First of all, obviously it's faculty members who usually make decisions when it comes to university-run or department-run events. They're also the people who have the majority of the input on curriculum, and they produce research which ultimately is a primary focus of a university. The opinions and consensus of a university's academics is always going to massively influence the curriculum and events held by a university.

Student-led events, such as ones organised by the Student Union or even societies, are organised by committees of students, yes. But naturally, these groups and their events will reflect the opinions and desires of the majority of the students in them. A fringe group who have a minority opinion in the student are not going to be able to force the SU to run a debate for them to espouse their views.

Furthermore, societies and unions usually (just basing this on policies at the universities I've attended) agree to run in accordance with rules and guidelines set by the university.

And obviously, if a university or an SU decide to pull a controversial event because it becomes clear that the majority of students disagree with the running of the event, no one's freedom of speech is being infringed upon. They're just making decisions based on the wishes of an important stakeholder group, which they're entitled to do.

Of course they can't have a 'pro life' group. The only person that should have an opinion on whether a woman gets an abortion is the woman herself. If you're pro life don't get an abortion yourself but don't push your views on ANYONE else. The persons body is literally no one else's business EVER!!!

But it is. I think you will find legislators have the control over the law that determines the legality of abortion and medical teams have a major input too.

@UsedUpUsername

people screeching about "freedom of speech

Screeching. What next, dismissing people’s need for ‘freedumbs’?

Yeah why not

And obviously, if a university or an SU decide to pull a controversial event because it becomes clear that the majority of students disagree with the running of the event, no one's freedom of speech is being infringed upon. They're just making decisions based on the wishes of an important stakeholder group, which they're entitled to do.

minatrina you really haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. This is entirely wrong.

@minatrina
"But academics don't spend their valuable research time producing articles that argue with, to pick a random example, with flat earthers - there is no real value to be had in that conversation. Universities don't hold events inviting discussion on "is the Earth flat after all?" because it would be a pointless exercise and also probably rather cruel! Not all viewpoints are worthy of academic debate."

You may or you may not be right. But it doesn't mean that people who believe in a flat earth don't have the right to study at university and express their belief that the earth is flat. And if someone wants to debate it, why do the academics care? If it's boring to them, they don't have to engage. I've worked with lots of academics in both higher education and in business, and some of them are the most narrow-minded people I've ever met. I wouldn't base my views around what academics think. 😂

At one time in history abortion was held as wrong. In the present time, feeling has swung pro-choice. In the future it might go back to being wrong and illegal. Do you think because that would be held as the prevalent opinion of society, people shouldn't be allowed to discuss it because the decision had been made so it was boring to the academics?

@Looneytune253

Of course they can't have a 'pro life' group. The only person that should have an opinion on whether a woman gets an abortion is the woman herself. If you're pro life don't get an abortion yourself but don't push your views on ANYONE else. The persons body is literally no one else's business EVER!!!

You don’t think the mothers of disabled children have a right to have opinions about the various legalities surrounding abortion legislation and disability? I disagree with them but they have every right to have an opinion and to test it in the courts as happened recently. The court case failed, rightly according to the law in my opinion, but I don’t kid myself that the issue is simple or cut and dried. There isn’t pretty much anywhere in the world where only the woman herself gets to make the decision - there are always legalities around access to abortion. I think the U.K. has struck a good balance in current law, but it’s also right that this gets tested and debated too in a democratic society.

@IM0GEN

Of course they should be allowed - we have freedom of speech in this country. It’s appalling that some people are trying to censor views that differ from their own.

The current climate in regards all kinds of topics means that too often only the views acceptable to certain groups are allowed so I don't think we have true free speech. Until it is realised that freedom of speech includes the freedom to hold a view contrary to yours we won't have freedom of speech. Try expressing certain views on this site!

@foxgoosefinch

At a village hall meeting, I trust that the organisers will decide what they deem appropriate to be discussed at their meeting. Just the same as a university, no one has an automatic right to have their views platformed.

What a mangled backformed new verb “to platform” is

Anyway. As lots of posters up thread, including me, have pointed out, a village hall meeting isn’t subject to the Charities Act; it doesn’t have a public sector equality duty or to comply with PREVENT or have to be mindful of ECHR guidelines. So it’s not at all the same; neither is it the same as a company; so it sounds very ill-informed to claim it is. Please do some sustained reading around this before keeping on making claims that are frankly not true. I’m a trustee of two educational charities and can tell you absolutely that what you’ve said here is rubbish.

I'm sorry that you find it hard to keep up with the evolution of our language. I've always thought such prescriptivist tendencies a little odd.

Oh dear 🤣 you asked me my opinion of what I think should be allowed at a village hall meeting. I told you that I believe that's a decision for the organisers of the village hall meeting. So, you object me saying that a village hall could be entitled to platform (oh look! I said it again!) whichever fringe groups decide they want a pop because... they're not beholden to PREVENT regulations?

Copy and paste fail - should have said;

So, you object me saying that a village hall shouldn't be expected to platform (oh look! I said it again!) whichever fringe groups decide they want a pop because... they're not beholden to PREVENT regulations?

Until it is realised that freedom of speech includes the freedom to hold a view contrary to yours we won't have freedom of speech. Try expressing certain views on this site!

Exactly. Some pretty extreme views on here about hating pro choice groups. They are people who hold a view - albeit an unpopular view to some, but hating them is pretty extreme.

@GrinchTastic

And obviously, if a university or an SU decide to pull a controversial event because it becomes clear that the majority of students disagree with the running of the event, no one's freedom of speech is being infringed upon. They're just making decisions based on the wishes of an important stakeholder group, which they're entitled to do.

minatrina you really haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. This is entirely wrong.

In what way is it wrong?

Freedom of speech is important. The freedom to express and challenge opinions.

Where "pro-life" is contentious is that such groups often go far beyond the individual's opinion in not supporting abortion to active campaigning to take away the right to make private medical and life-long life decisions and often use intimidating and offensive means to impose their viewpoint. I'd rather see the issue discussed in an open setting such as a debating society rather than a single issue, echo chamber group.

I'd have no issue with an environmental society, I would with Extinction Rebellion for the same reasons. No issue with a vegan society, but I would with PETA.

Abortion has the added practicality that it is only directly applicable to women, and continuing an unwanted pregnancy or becoming a carer to a disabled child has a very long term impact on her life opportunities and exacerbates inequalities between men and women.

It's a valuable debate to discuss and women's rights are hard-won and fragile, but a single-issue society is not always the best way to express those opinions and it is fair for a university to be wary of the way it is seen to endorse certain points of view.

minatrina read the many posts pointing out the statutory duties of universities

Mina, just drop the silly stuff about universities just being the same as Tesco or a village hall meeting because you’re factually wrong, is what we’re saying. Read up on the law surrounding exempt charities and educational institutions - it’s more complex than what you happen to think about the Tesco meat aisle.

You can mangle language all you like! I’m an an academic in the field and I don’t care if you do - but I’m also allowed to say it sounds daft and slangy. That’s what freedom of speech is!

@GrinchTastic

minatrina read the many posts pointing out the statutory duties of universities

What? The 1986 act? Plenty of extra legislation and guidelines have since been passed allowing universities to cancel controversial events if they violate certain clauses.

@foxgoosefinch

Mina, just drop the silly stuff about universities just being the same as Tesco or a village hall meeting because you’re factually wrong, is what we’re saying. Read up on the law surrounding exempt charities and educational institutions - it’s more complex than what you happen to think about the Tesco meat aisle.

You can mangle language all you like! I’m an an academic in the field and I don’t care if you do - but I’m also allowed to say it sounds daft and slangy. That’s what freedom of speech is!

I don't recall mentioning Tesco, so if I've missed something on that then I'm sorry. It wasn't me who brought up village halls.

I'm aware of the legislation you're on about (though I'm not claiming to be an expert). Somebody (perhaps you, I don't recall) asked what I thought should happen at village halls. I told you what my opinion on that is. You then proceeded to talk about things that have absolutely no bearing on what I said.

I did my degree in linguistics, so I feel perfectly happy with my choice of language. Of course you're titled to your opinion - did I say otherwise? me disagreeing with you isn't the same as me saying you're not entitled to an opinion!

The Exeter protests are also around wanting the group to be defunded by the university. I'm not one for disbanding/banning just for being pro-life, but I'd question what funding such a tiny group might be getting and if it meets whatever guidelines to get and use of that funding. My first thoughts were is financial gain involved (I was raised around a lot of "pro-life" groups, and this type of corruption wasn't uncommon).

I can see why people would not want that or any other single issue group to get funding from the university. Freedom of expression does not mean paying them to say it. Many groups exist without that funding, it just requires them to put their money where their mouth is.

There are accusations that some of those protestors have made death threats against those in the anti-abortion group. The student union seems to be taking that seriously from the remarks made and I hope the university is as well. Threats don't fall under freedom of expression.

I strongly disagree it's an innocuous ideology or that the abortion debate largely is about when life begins. The latter concept comes up in debates, usually more as a distraction, but that comes within the argument of who owns our bodies, our lives, and who decides which risks are worth taking. If your answer to those is God or the man who can impregnate, the woman pregnant doesn't get body autonomy and when life starts is irrelevant. If your answer is the one pregnant, then whether or not she views it as a life doesn't change her ability to make choices around whether the risk to continue the pregnancy is worth what she hopes to gain. I can fully view an embryo as a life and still want it removed from my uterus when the risks of it being there does not outweigh the benefits I'm hoping for, just like other forms of self defense which when needed may result in death.

We're in a country where "she was into it" is still used to get away with killing women so I can see why some may not want their body autonomy seen as a reasonably up for debate when whichever way the debate goes, we end up harmed. I don't think the group should be banned for the stall or ridiculous instagram posts, but let's not pretend that it's just a matter of religious freedom. Plenty of religious people support bodily autonomy and there are those of no faith that don't think women should have it. It comes down to how they're spreading their message and whether the uni is actually funding it.

What? The 1986 act? Plenty of extra legislation and guidelines have since been passed allowing universities to cancel controversial events if they violate certain clauses.

Which clauses? Which legislation and guidelines? Are you referring to Prevent? That doesn’t apply here.

@GrinchTastic

What? The 1986 act? Plenty of extra legislation and guidelines have since been passed allowing universities to cancel controversial events if they violate certain clauses.

Which clauses? Which legislation and guidelines? Are you referring to Prevent? That doesn’t apply here.

From memory, no not prevent. The equalities act is the first one that comes to mind - a lot of arguing happened at my uni when it came to events and protected groups and what constitutes "good relations" with protected groups.

Mostly it's about protecting everybody, so objecting to euthansia of 'handicapped' baies, euthansia of the elderly etc. It's about valuaing every human life.

What? The 1986 act? Plenty of extra legislation and guidelines have since been passed allowing universities to cancel controversial events if they violate certain clauses.

You could start by reading the Charities Act 2011 and its subsequent updates, plus the EqA10 and Articles 9-11 and 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and thinking about the intersections between them. This is not cut and dried law; educational institutions also need to exercise judgment and care in how they understand it and there is significant room for debate. But it is a lot more complex than you suggest.