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.

This ship sailed years ago. 7 years ago when I started at uni, a fresh faced 18 year old, I applied to write an article for The Tab (student newspaper). I entitled my article ‘free speech in universities’ - it got rejected for not being ‘student centric’ enough!

The uni also banned certain newspapers from campus, introduced gender neutral toilets, and campaigned against hosting certain guest speakers they disagreed with in my second year.

I decided not to bother with a master’s in the end.

None of this is new.

This is too simplistic a way to look at it. Universities are deciding things because TRAs are staging violent and illegal protests. They are deciding things because they are under funding pressure to agree with far right trans ideology views. They are deciding things because they are being put in difficult positions by people with power which is being supported by systemic and structural racist, homophobic and misogynistic views. An uninvite means they wanted her and were pressured into doing something in the interests of a group of people who already hold the power. The initial invitation was an expression of their freedom of expression. The lack of attention to operation of power is really, really worrying.

They aren't being forced to attend.

Whoever at the university is employed to make that decision. I have no idea what their name is, how would I? The job title and responsibilities would vary from one university to the next. It could be made by someone managing their marketing, or managing their events, or from a higher level than that. It could be decided by a board rather than one individual. Often it’s the students union rather than the university itself. It doesn’t matter though - the university decided that.

Your second two paragraphs aren’t relevant to me or what I said. They’re just an attempt to drag me into an argument because you got prematurely offended by what I said and are looking for an outlet for your outrage. As I’ve said, I don’t know who she is or what she’s said - how on earth would I know whether their decision was rational or reasonable? The fact is, they’re entitled to be “batshit” if they want to be - it’s their venue.

You clearly don’t understand the first thing about the university sector and what its statutory obligations are.

There would only be a contradiction if it were a ban from a public place or a public setting. It’s not. It’s a university. The university have complete and total jurisdiction over who can and cannot speak there

Oh dear. How to tell me you know nothing about the Higher Education regulatory framework without telling me you know nothing about the Higher Education regulatory framework

It’s not too simplistic, it’s just a very simple issue.

It’s funny because you’re wrong. HERF has no impact at all on what I said.

The simple issue is that she was invited and there was interest in hearing her speak.

It is not convincing to pretend that the reasons why she was then uninvited were simple. I'm guessing that you don't believe in any structural inequalities? Or do you think that these were not in operation here for some reason?

So you’re suggesting the university have acted illegally and that the government are trying to pass an entirely irrelevant law in order to make it illegal? 😂

It's absolutely laughable that someone thinks a marketing person would or should get to decide who gets to speak on a university campus. But it's also frightening and demonstrates why the Higher Education Bill is needed.

Several universities have been in breach of their statutory duties in the last few years, yes, deploying loopholes such as claiming not to be able to provide adequate security. The HE Bill is needed to prevent this kind of cowardice.

I didn’t comment on why she was uninvited so how could my comment on that be too simple? I didn’t make any comment - simple or complex - on that.

You’ve guessed incorrectly. I’ve made no comment at all on that. You’ve just taken my non-comment as a comment that I must disagree with you.

If you own/run/control a venue then it is up to you who can and cannot speak there

I don't think that is, or even should be, the case for universities. They are largely publicly funded institutions who serve an important role in ensuring ideas are heard and discussed. Provided the speaker is respecting the law they should be allowed to speak to students who want to hear them.

Besides which, you are missing entirely what happened here. It wasn't "we as an institution don't agree with this woman's views so won't allow her in".

What has actually happened is "some people want to hear her speak, some don't want to allow them to hear her speak and we, as an institution, are siding with those who want to prevent others from hearing her". That is censorship, and it shouldn't be happening at universities.

So your argument is that it could have been that the university, of their own violation and free from any of the current abounding pressures just changed their mind. Well, it's an argument. Just one that I think ignores power, structural inequalities and the reasons why people make decisions. Yes, they have the right to say "I don't want you to speak here" but that's not what happened here. They invited then disinvited someone. To see that as just a 'freedom of speech' issue is, I think, worryingly simplistic. You are welcome to disagree with me but simplifying the issue to something which did not happen is not helpful.

No. That isn’t my argument. I don’t know why you’ve invented an argument, attributed it to me and then argued against your invention rather than just countering what I actually said.

People are calling you out for defending this chilling behaviour in the higher education sector.

Universities are supposed to encourage independent thought, not try to ban it.

You get that, right?

Any person employed by a university who has the power to cancel an event such as this and actually does so for this reason is not fit to be in their job and they should be fired.

That isn’t my argument.

Is your argument that the university is entitled to kowtow to whoever shouts loudest and ban speakers on that group's say so? Because I profoundly disagree with that too.

Agree. I’m a lecturer and seriously have to watch my step. I know there are certain topics not even worth broaching, it could mean the end of my career and isn’t worthwhile. Students are much more ‘offended’ than they were when I was at uni, it seems to almost be a cultural thing. As if being offended is actually an argument. I don’t mention trans issues at all, I wouldn’t dare.

I'm not inventing an argument, I'm asking you to explain yourself more clearly. Iv that's not what you were saying then can you say again what you mean in relation to an disinvite (not an original decision not to invite which is irrelevant to this discussion) towards an oppressed group. Apologies if I got you wrong, it just looks like you're not addressing the reality of the fact that a member of an oppressed group was disinvited or suggesting that even though she was disinvited, the reality of her oppression is not relevant and that this can be seen as simply a matter of free speech in the way that perhaps asking a person to present a 3 hour long presentation about something people generally aren't interested in in a massive hall is. How do you account for the reality of the context when you suggest this is free speech?

But surely you don't want to be deplatforming people with differing viewpoints at a university? Surely universities should be exactly where differing viewpoints should be freely discussed and debated and critical thinking taught?

If we don't have this we are effectively teaching our young people to have one point of view and not to be able to think for themselves. That's extremely worrying.

It also seems as if some students do want to hear what these speakers have to say. And other's (a minority?) are blocking it by "shouting loudly". People should not be blocked from speaking because others are shouting over them.

Plus the OP has drawn attention to a wider issue in that research is now being blocked in the name of inclusivity. This seems like another step further in censorship and the promotion of one way of thinking.

I personally don't care what your opinion is and what the subject is about. This attack on free speech and academic freedoms is extremely concerning.

But surely you don't want to be deplatforming people with differing viewpoints at a university?

I’m quite shock that anyone would think it’s okay. The government have recently reminded schools that they are categorically not allowed to only offer a platform to one side of any political argument. So a school cannot, for example, only invite speakers who are left wing. Because we have a responsibility to those we educate to ensure that they hear a balance of viewpoints rather than indoctrinating them. The same standard surely should apply to universities.

The same standard DOES apply to universities:
Registered universities and colleges must comply with our regulatory frameworkk^. This framework, among other conditions, sets out standards for the way universities and colleges are managed and governed. And one of these ‘public interest governance principles’ is freedom of speech.

From OfS.

Where did I defend it? Stop accusing me of things I haven’t done just because you want to be angry at me.