To worry about free speech at universities

[ChristinaXYZ]

Despite the various moves by the government to supposedly protect free speech and normal academic deabte the situation on the ground does not seem to change at all.

In the last week Claire Fox was disinvited from Royal Holloway for a deabte on free speech I believe - incredible as that may seem. Some students want to hear what she had to say and had invited her but got 'strong-armed' out of it by the students' union and then failed by the university admin who should have backed free speech.

And before people say it can't be that bad, Claire Fox's was disinvited after liking a Ricky Gervias joke - going on his social media profile that means millions and millions of us are also not fit to speak to university students!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/22/chilling-truth-cancellation/

Today this:

"Dr John Armstrong, a scholar at King's College London (KCL), applied to carry out a survey of elite athletes and volunteers on whether trans women, who are born male, should compete in women's track and field categories and whether they felt they could express their views.

However, the university's ethics panel rejected his application last week citing equality and diversity concerns, in what has been labelled an attack on academic freedom."

Further in the article it goes on to say:

"Dr Armstrong told The Telegraph: "They appear to be trying to prevent me from using the concept of sex at all. I am not misgendering any individuals, I am just accurately using the terms male and female.

"I’m being blocked from conducting research and it’s impacting upon my academic freedom.

"No serious work has been done by the various federations to try to find out the opinions of people in athletics, both at the grassroots and elite athletes.
"By refusing to allow people to conduct research that doesn’t meet certain activist viewpoints, that undermines the credibility of research in general.""

You can read much more here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/26/transgender-athlete-research-rejected-professor-called-trans/

What it must be like to study and work in this kind of cloistered enviroment with a kind of inquisition checking up on whther you have transgressed I can't imagine. there must be hundreds of little choices staff and students make every day to conform - changing what they say,m what they write, the topics they're prepared to research. All the little chilling-effect ramifications that never make the headlines.

And if you think your family is woke enough for your teens to pass the purity tests when they get to unviersity - you're wrong. You can't feed this monster to pacify it. If wants bigger and bigger sacrifices and keeps changing the rules.

I just wish the governemnt would do more. Much more. And now.

Bloody well said @ATerrorofLeftovers

Because one group of students objected. She didn’t demand a platform as you implied. She was invited and then pressure was applied to cancel this. This is censorship.

And to those like @ManipulatorPedipulator @Nightlystroll and @lailamaria who seem to think free speech is a bad thing - a reminder of what I think is the most important part of my original post

"And if you think your family is woke enough for your teens to pass the purity tests when they get to unviersity - you're wrong. You can't feed this monster to pacify it. If wants bigger and bigger sacrifices and keeps changing the rules."

One day, if you do not stand up for free speech now, they will come for you or someone close to you that shares your views, because you will trip up, get something wrong, get old, fail to stay up to date, fail to clap at the right moment, like the wrong tweet, follow the wrong person, fail to damn the right person, or otherwise not be woke enough and then you'll have to publically self-flagulate for all your worth to keep your place in society. You are not exempt from this, you're really not.

and @Nightlystroll as I say above the Free Speech Union supports a massive range of views - both sides in fact in most arguments. And rightly so. So that's where all the people are who want free speech for Claire Fox, defending free speech for the other side too!

Yes. If she was disinvited then she wasn’t welcome to speak. The reason why isn’t relevant. It’s flatly not a violation of freedom of speech for an organisation to say they don’t want you to speak at their venue.

(Not sure why you quoted me and asked a question without tagging me so I’d be notified, almost as if you were intentionally trying to avoid answering because the only logical answer would make you look silly).

ODFOD. I didn’t say freedom of speech is a bad thing. I said freedom of speech applies to both sides, not just your side. Frankly, you clearly think freedom of speech is a bad thing because you think one side should be allowed to express their view and the other side should put up and shut up - how is that being in favour of freedom of speech?

So? She was disinvited. Therefore she was no longer welcome. Why is that so hard to understand? I made no comment on whether she should have been disinvited. I simply said she’s not welcome to speak if they’ve disinvited her.

Yes. If she was disinvited then she wasn’t welcome to speak. The reason why isn’t relevant. It’s flatly not a violation of freedom of speech for an organisation to say they don’t want you to speak at their venue.

Actually the reasoning behind the disinvite is vitally important given that it was to take place at a university - are you aware of the (admittedly flawed) free speech bill currently ping ponging in parliament?

Equipping students with the opportunity to hear viewpoints they don't agree with, and encourage them to engage in respectful debate is a vital part of university life.

Excuse me, that's not what I said at all. My complaint is that we got to the position of people being de-platformed because for years people were disinvited from events and it was not challenged by those on the left because they didn't like people like Rees-Mogg, etc. So they ignored what was happening because it suited their agenda.
But like everything, the wheel turns and suddenly those people, once happy that speakers they despised were being turned away, suddenly find that people they agree with are being silenced too. Then it becomes an outrage.
Well, free speech works all ways. I'm pleased that people are being offended by having their opinions silenced. Maybe now they'll all stand to make sure everyone's voice us hears, even those, actually in the case of universities especially those, that challenge your most strongly held beliefs.

But like everything, the wheel turns and suddenly those people, once happy that speakers they despised were being turned away, suddenly find that people they agree with are being silenced too. Then it becomes an outrage.

Im not sure why you've decided that. I've never been happy about free speech being silenced, no matter who it is (within the boundaries of legality).

Why I've decided what?

That everyone here was happy with no platforming until it affected people they agreed with

‘Not putting up and shutting up’ means turning up to a debate, putting your side and arguing cogently and intelligently for it. All the while, taking into account what the other side is saying, rebutting their points that you don’t agree with, and even sometimes (gasp!) conceding any points where you see they correct.. .

It’s not gagging the other side so they are unable to speak, now, is it?

This used to be such commonly accepted knowledge/practice that it didn’t used to need to be stated amongst adults. Very young teenagers, perhaps. As they are learning. But never adults. What the fuck has happened to our education system and society?

Where did I say that? I never referred to anyone on here.

Where did I say that? I never referred to anyone on here.

Precisely who are you referring to when you make the point then?

Don’t be ridiculous. People are perfectly within their rights to say “I disagree with your views and therefore I am not hosting you”. Do you seriously think you’re defending freedom of speech by saying someone has to say what you want them to say? People are under no obligation at all to provide a platform to anyone that they don’t want to. This isn’t a new concept - bitching about it appears to be a new concept.

Freedom of speech works both ways. Telling someone they have to use their freedom of speech in the way you’re demanding is so incredibly ironic. Freedom of speech means rebutting someone’s points if you choose to. It also means ignoring someone entirely if you choose to. It means telling people they aren’t welcome if you choose to.

🙄Read what I said.

You’re the one being ridiculous. And hard of comprehension/thinking.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times on this thread, people at the university DID want to host Claire Fox. Then OTHER people at the university got their knickers in a twist because they didn’t like her views and made a big silly fuss that resulted in her invitation being rescinded.

This is not how intelligent, civilised adults behave.

Do you seriously think you’re defending freedom of speech by saying someone has to say what you want them to say?

Nobody has said this. You appear to be constructing an argument you wish people had said and are arguing with that, rather than engaging thoughtfully with what posters have actually said.

In fact, the whole point of what those in favour of free speech have been saying on this thread is that people ARE allowed to say exactly what they think, even if I or others don’t agree. We are NOT trying to stop them or get them to parrot what we believe.

Freedom of speech does NOT mean deciding you get to control what others say or hear. Which is what has happened here.

People in general. I've been making this point for a long time and I've had people on threads agree with me, saying that they'd ignored complaints they'd read about because they didn't agree with those de-platformed. Subsequently they regretted it when discussion about issues important to them were quashed. I think their comments actually reflected those of many in the public at large.

It doesn’t matter what different groups of students want. They don’t make the decisions. It’s irrelevant. The fact you’ve described one group as “silly” with their “knickers in a twist” demonstrates you support one side, which I’ve remained entirely neutral.

It’s funny how you’ve gone from saying it to denying anyone said it. You said people have to listen and rebutt opinions they don’t like. They don’t. They can just say “I don’t want to give you a platform” and end the discussion. That’s their right. Telling people that they have to engage in debate and they have to rebutt arguments is not respecting their freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech means you do get to control what you allow to be broadcast in your own venues. Which is what has happened here.

Just own the fact you want her to speak because you agree with her views and stop pretending it’s about defending freedom of speech. The opinion you actually hold is perfectly valid. It loses all validity when you try to masquerade it as something else.

Again - she was disinvited because one group of students silenced another group of students. Let’s not pretend it was just of change of mind and she was no longer welcome. Pressure was applied by one group to make the other group conform. They were silenced. It is censorship and it is worrying.

It’s not censorship though. It’s an organisation picking one side, which they’re allowed to do. They aren’t obliged to be impartial, or even rational. As I said, it doesn’t matter why she was disinvited. The fact is, she was. So she’s not welcome.

It doesn’t matter what different groups of students want. They don’t make the decisions

Except they did. The debating society, run by the NUS, invited her, then were persuaded by another group of students, not involved with the society, to silence her.

The fucking debating society. Silencing debate.

This. Universities have a statutory duty to protect freedom of expression and academic freedom. The Office for Students needs to go in hard on universities that fail to uphold these obligations, defunding them or their student unions if necessary. In this case, the speaker was invited by a group of students who then had undue pressure put upon them to rescind the invitation. This is sinister and not the sign of a functioning institution that is part of a healthy democracy.

Of course it is censorship. And in a university. It’s a disgrace and part of a very worrying trend.