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.

Universities are not run by the students. Just because the customers who hate olives pay for their meals too doesn’t mean they get to decide on the decor. Universities are managed by their boards, the board can delegate certain responsibilities to whomever they choose.

If you’re now arguing that the people who made the decision she’s not welcome didn’t have the authority to make that decision then why is she listening? She should just turn up if that’s the case.

You're misunderstanding me. Deliberately, I suspect.

There should be no person and no group of people within a university who have the power to ban speakers invited by another group simply because they disagree with their views. This is not free speech. It is the literal opposite of free speech.

If these censorship decisions are being made by staff, those staff need to be sacked for such an egregious abuse of power and failure to understand what a university is actually for.

If they are being made by shouty snowflake students, an actual grown up needs to stand up to them and make it clear that if they feel threatened by opposing points of view, they should not be at university.

I’m not misunderstanding you - I understand you just fine. I disagree with you. There’s a difference. Not everyone who thinks differently from you is some kind of intellectual subhuman.

You keep stating your opinion as if it’s fact and then acting like it means actual facts are incorrect.

You don’t seem to recognise that you’re the one being a “shouty snowflake” right now, throwing a tantrum and assuming I must be stupid because I dared to think you’re wrong. I’ve heard you out, I’ve read your comments, I’ve put up with you repeatedly ignoring what I’ve said and changing direction when you have no response, I’ve countered you making incorrect assumptions and false accusations. I still think you’re wrong.

You think that the group of people capable of having the loudest tantrum being able to stop those with opposing points of view from speaking at their university is "free speech". Despite the fact that they are literally opposing (other people's) free speech.

If you want to die on that hill, I won't stop you.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Jesus wept.

For transparency - can we stop saying it's the university /management/ diversity officers that has decided/does decide who to invite/disinvite etc.

It isn't - it's the students union.

Unis fund their students unions, and have a statutory responsibility to uphold freedom of speech which extends to ensuring all student voices are heard. Including those that did the initial inviting. I'm not discipline their SU for not allowing that initial group of students to have a voice, RH has not upheld that statutory responsibility.

OfS could take action, but as that is likely to be a costly and long process, appears to prefer to wait till the free speech bill has gone through parliament.

But I repeat this case, and most others, is not the uni doing the inviting/no platforming. It's the SUs, hell bent on only representing some of their students.

That’s not what I said. This is your problem - you think the whole world is stupid if they don’t agree with you. You ignore anything said to you and twist everything.

You know, freedom of speech also comes with the option to listen. Maybe you should consider that choice some time.

I didn't call anyone stupid.

I am just not sure how we are supposed to interpret your first post other than, "not letting people speak at a university is just the university exercising it's right to free speech".

I think we all know that universities can make any decision they want.

My point is actually, no, they can't. hey do not have the same rights to freedom of expression as I do, because I am a human and the university (or its student union) is not. So ManipulatorPedipulator's whole argument is based on a faulty premise. A university does not have the human right to freedom of expression because it isn't a flipping human!

Unis fund their students unions, and have a statutory responsibility to uphold freedom of speech which extends to ensuring all student voices are heard.

This is really good to know. Its a shame it isn't being done by the university, though. And even more annoying that nobody bothers enforcing it.

Interpret it as if I meant the exact words I wrote rather than some strange twisted invention, like you keep doing.

😂I didn’t say they were human.

If we just look at the exact words then it's hard to see it as relevant to this conversation.

If you're listening, why are you not answering my question about how your point relates to the scenario being discussed?

Thank you. This is really helpful context.

Is the SU not accountable to anyone then?

It's so telling that many people don't seem to have even a low-level understanding of the role of the university, or why, for example, tenure was an important part of the university structure. Discussions like this are inevitably revealing on that count.

But I believe the misunderstanding many younger people have on this is much wider spread. There was a controversy on a FB page local to me, where some yahoo was photographed wearing a jacket with a swastika on the back. There were large numbers of people who thought this persons should, and could, be arrested. While there are places where some symbols like that are illegal, I don't live in one of them. But these people really thought this fell under hate speech laws. They even reproduced the laws, but did not seem to realize that the bar for what constitutes hate speech is far and above what they understood.

In a way this isn't surprising, I see the stuff my kids learn at school, and it's very simplistic - pretty much, saying mean things is hate speech, mean things are wrong, and hate speech is illegal. They get no teaching about freedom of expression or civil liberties in general, when I've asked them what they learn about that it's a total blank. My two eldest had never even heard the term "civil liberties." They certainly have never heard of things like civil liberties organizations defending the free expression of groups like the KKK, much less how that lays the foundations for other, more desirable, challenges to authority.

Even medieval universities, contrary to popular belief, gave their faculty a lot of leeway in terms of expounding controversial ideas so long as they didn't claim they were authoritative truths. I feel like we are actually getting to a place where we are more restricted than that.

I genuinely don’t understand how you think it doesn’t relate to it. Could you clarify what exactly is confusing you?

Shame neither the group, or it's cheif snowflake Toby Young, actually believe in freedom of expression eh?

I tend to find that those with more right wing aligned views shout the loudest about "free speech" while also being the most likely to demand censorship of views the don't like. "Happy to offend but never to be offended" should be the right's motto.

You're talking about a scenario where someone freely chooses to not do something. The relevant scenario is where someone was offered a platform but that platform was later withdrawn, despite the fact that many people were interested in the topic, following pressure from a group which is representing the interests of society's most privileged people (men). It's not about someone not being offered a platform in the first place, it's about the offer being withdrawn at a later date. Can you give a relevant olive scenario which includes this really important point? To simply present the idea that you are not entitled to a platform without considering the reasons why a platform* *was offered and then withdrawn and the reasons why one side of a vital debate is being silenced and the other given a megaphone is not helpful or particularly relevant IMHO.

ManipulatorPedipulator, I don't believe you are arguing in good faith. Posters are getting confused because you are (I suspect deliberately) being unclear when you are presenting your argument.

That doesn’t answer my question. You’ve just gone on a rant that’s irrelevant to what I said.

With the olive scenario you requested:
John owns a restaurant that’s frequented by Bob, Alice and Fred. Fred hates olives and makes a sign. Bob also hates olives and likes the sign. He invites Fred to put the sign up at John’s restaurant. Alice sees this happening and likes olives. She goes to the waitress and says she doesn’t want the sign up. The waitress doesn’t want trouble so she asks Fred to take his sign down and take it away. Fred initially refuses so the waitress checks with John who confirms he doesn’t want the sign up. Fred takes his sign and puts it up outside his own house or in a different restaurant or at the park.

Fred, Alice and Bob all have a right to their opinions and to express them. They’re all entitled to be in the restaurant and all pay to be there. But the restaurant, owned by John but with duties delegated to the waitress, are entitled to tell Fred to take his sign elsewhere even though Bob invited him and even though John/the waitress is only trying to appease Alice.

None of that is a comment on how good or bad olives are. None of that is saying Fred is evil or that his sign is dangerous or that his artwork is poor. John is entitled to say “I don’t want your sign here”.

I’ve been exceptionally clear. No one has said they’re confused, they’ve said that I’m confused (when I’m not) because I don’t agree with them. Have I confused you?

It’s not bad faith to not engage in circle jerk frothing.

Can you give a relevant olive scenario which includes this really important point?

Some people asked if olives could be served as part of the refreshments at an event. The olives were bought and added to the published menu. Another group of people said 'We don't like olives. We hate olives. You mustn't serve them because we dislike them so much.' And they made so much fuss about the olives, even though no-one was forcing them to eat them, or even attend the event where they were being served, that the organisers refused to serve the olives and returned them to the supplier, even though there were other people who did want to eat the olives.

Well either I'm confused about what your argument, or you're confused about what free speech is. So one of the two of us is definitely confused about the point you're making.

Except that in the university scenario, there is no John.

Nobody owns the university.