Jo Johnson to tell universities to stop 'no-platforming' speakers

[newsparklythings]

In today's Guardian, refers to Germaine Greer:

www.theguardian.com/education/2017/dec/26/jo-johnson-universities-no-platforming-freedom-of-speech

This is very good news, top story on bbc news on radio too

This is very welcome. It is just so bizarre he has to say it. I think back to when I was a Tory hating student in the late 70s and early 80s. If I had been presented then with his comments on the importance of free speech and not told he was Conservative I would have been nodding in agreement.

This is very interesting news. I’m glad to hear people are speaking up further and I hope this can help open up debate on damaging topics.

This is great news.

It is ironic though that the right wingers are actually protecting free speech. I wonder what Corbyn has had to say about it?

Universities have no power to compel students' unions, who do most of the no-platforming - they are legally separate bodies. Johnson's statement isn't even compatible with the government's own Prevent policy.

Don't be fooled. This is part of a broader strategy to undermine academic expertise and public faith in the world-leading university. sector

So can’t University’s do anything re no platforming?

Soupy: aren’t student unions at least partly funded by universities? And therefore the uni administration could make funding conditional on upholding freedom of speech? (I don’t know - am just asking.)

Not sure the right to free speech has ever included the right to force someone else to provide you with a platform.

By all means have an opinion that the owners of a platform ought to allow controversial opinions.

But forcing the owners of a platform to allow it to be used in ways they do not wish it to, not allow them to have any say in what eminates from it?

Well, if you are going to do this do it, but not sure about presenting this as if you are just preventing them from interfering in free speech.

There's a lot of discussion around this at the moment because the Joint Committee on Human Rights are holding an inquiry:

The Committee has launched this inquiry to find out:

- Whether Government policy on free speech in universities is coherent

- Taken together, do the Prevent duty and the statutory duty to ensure free speech appropriately balance Convention rights and public interest considerations?

- The role of the Office for Students in ensuring freedom of speech

- University authorities have a statutory duty to secure freedom of speech, including on student union premises. Student unions say they are private bodies and have a right to refuse speakers. Should university authorities have responsibility for the activities of their student unions? If so, to what extent?

- Is there concrete evidence that free speech is being suppressed in universities? Who should be responsible for monitoring this?

- If there is a problem, in what ways is free speech being suppressed? By whom? What are the causes? Is any problem increasing?

The oral evidence sessions are worth watching. It's not clear whether written submissions are still being accepted. The deadline was 20/12/17 but the submission form is still up.

But forcing the owners of a platform to allow it to be used in ways they do not wish it to, not allow them to have any say in what eminates from it?

Do you think that's how no platforming generally works? The speaker first has to get invited by the uni formally or a uni group there. Then for whatever reason they are disinvited due to no platforming by university political organisations. They don't just turn up and say they want to speak.

JAPAB needs to get with the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and the Public Sector Equality Duty.

University authorities have a statutory duty to secure freedom of speech, including on student union premises.

The government are worried about left wing universities churning out Labour voters.

Anybody, no matter how disgusting their views are should have the right to say what they want to say. It highlights those you don't agree with and it makes people with one sided views think. The only thing not up for discussion are children. Leave kids alone

So glad this is being tackled. The university student groupthink/snowflakery is malignant.

This needs to be eradicated. I would even go as far to say that religious student unions need to host mandatory debates and events with people outside of the religion. The Catholic and Islamic socs as they were when I was at uni, is how a lot of young men were radicalized - this can’t be allowed to happen again.

Can anyone else think of a sector which apparently has to let everyone have a say (so no no-platforming) whilst also adhering to Prevent (ensuring no inciting terrorism)?

Honestly universities are to blame for EVERY FUCKING THING THESE DAYS.

I don't disagree with either btw, just pisses me off that it's only universities that apparently need to walk this tightrope - and it's bloody difficult. Damned if we do damned if we don't.

University students have a lot more vulnerable young people than most other organisations. They are alone, some may be very far from family, and so radicalization is sometimes as easy as offering a free social event and then whispering into their ear (this is how a close friend was radicalized). Of course universities are not entirely to blame but they have long failed to own up to their part.

They don't just turn up and say they want to speak.

Actually they can - all universities are happy to rent out their lecture theatres to external organisations. Prevent now requires us to vet the hirer now before agreeing.

Ereshkigal, it's much of a muchness how it happens.
Someone asks to speak and the university says no;
Someone asks to speak and the university says yes but later changes its mind due to lobbying;
The university (or a body within it) invites someone to speak then later change its mind due to lobying...

Still not sure about outside aencies stepping in to force the owners of a platform to have to allow this or that view/speaker. But as I say, if you are going to do this do it, just not sure about presenting this as if you are protecting people's rights to free speech.

Micaela64 said -
"The government are worried about left wing universities churning out Labour voters."

Bit slow off the mark then considering this has been the case for two generations.

I am confused about this.

I agree with what Jo Johnson says in principle - given recent cases where invited speakers have subsequently been dis-invited because of protests, for example, it seems clear to me that the invitation should stand. No platforming has been used to shut down debate around gender critical speakers, for example.

But as others point out, this is the student unions.

For academics, there are issues around academic freedom, to research, and free speech, to publish controversial views. So, for example, the Professor at Oxford who has a research project on Empire, or the guy at Bath who wants to research de-transition. Both topics would have their detractors, but the debate surely hinges on the evidence and the validity of the research. Oxford University seem to be supporting Professor Biggar; the MSc student wanting to research detransitioning at Bath Spa is getting less support.

However, two things:

The argument that Johnston’s comments undermine universities and academic freedoms themselves - both Oxford and Bath Spa have been self-policing, in different ways, and the cases have opened up debates.

1. That there surely must also be an ethics of academic freedom, or freedom of speech, where academics also have responsibility as to the (possibly negative) impact of their work outside academia.

So, it is possible for Johnson to be both correct and also constraining intellectual developments, because universities- as thought-leaders- ought to be able to think through the ethical and moral dilemmas of holding or not holding difficult debates.

Not sure if that makes sense.

For anyone at a loose end there are rich pickings for a wry smile at the comments on a Facebook Guardian article about the subject. The mental gymnastics some are going through to convince themselves that no platforming isn't censorship is a sight to behold.

Here's the article in question, by Jenkins although there's a whiff of that eejit Jones about it.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/27/no-platform-universities-academic-freedom-free-speech?CMP=fb_gu

IcedCocoa where academics also have responsibility as to the (possibly negative) impact of their work outside academia.

This is a very dangerous view. It's precisely why Bath Spa refused permission to research detransitioners. This view gives veto power over research to powerful groups, like the government (don't do any research whose findings might contradict government policy) and influential activists.

Academics have a responsibility to the truth, alone. If the truth makes people uncomfortable, too bad.

University administrators are supine and want a quiet life, they will always choose not to hold difficult debates. And some academic fields are now devoted to SJW indoctrination. Therefore a nudge from the outside is often necessary, but it's better to come from society rather than government.

Fortunately there are some courageous defenders of academic freedom in universities, like Lindsay Shepherd:

globalnews.ca/news/3868080/laurier-accused-of-censorship-after-ta-reprimanded-for-playing-gender-pronoun-debate-clip/

No, it is not dangerous to say academics also have responsibility to consider potential negative impact of their work. I am not talking about vested interests of outside bodies (although research councils certainly set the funding agenda), I am talking about academics as individuals and as a collective group.

There are plenty of historical examples of unethical research work. At the risk of invoking Godwin’s law, you only need to look at scientific research in the Third Reich to show that freedom to research with no responsibility to others caused harm. Yes, there may have been great strides in understanding physiology and neuroscience, for example, great steps towards the ‘truth’, but if that was on the back of torture and death of groups seen as sub-human, we are talking about more than discomfort.

So, of course, academics and researchers have to balance social and moral responsibility against freedom to research. That is why there are ethics codes. For what it is worth, I agree that Bath Spa made the wrong decision but they were not wrong to consider the ethical issues of the matter. They made the wrong decision because of political reasons, not ethical ones.

It is not clear to me whether the Bath Spa researcher appealed the decision, or not. But I am not sure I agree that university administrations as such will not support difficult debates. Rather, I do think that academics who do not agree with specific (eg on the trans agenda) views may be scared to voice dissent, because of the backlash, which is a different thing. And if academics are scared to voice dissent, where is the SJW indoctrination coming from?

There is not usually one accepted ‘truth’; there is debate, revision, consensus, dissent, etc. What is accepted as truth is socially mediated. Thus, even those exercising academic freedom in search of their ‘truth’ have the responsibility to recognise the need for others to debate with them, to recognise there may be limits to what they can reasonably do without causing harm and so on. It is not dangerous to say unfettered academic freedom may cause harms, and that academics have a responsibility to recognise this and act accordingly. The question is who is the arbitrator when there are disputes about ethical boundaries, that was my point.

In the case of Professor Biggar at Oxford, his institution have supported his views. Whether and to what extent they would support an academic airing gender critical views, I don’t know.

Of course we can't torture people to produce academic knowledge. But that's about the ethics of the research process. What's dangerous is when research ethics mutates into 'would the results of this research prove controversial and so tarnish our university's brand?' That is exactly what Bath Spa did.

I sit on the ethics review board at university and there is a constant mission creep to reviewing the social acceptability of the fruits of research, which I fight against.

'There is not usually one accepted ‘truth’; there is debate, revision, consensus, dissent' Yes exactly, that's why we need academic freedom to debate even unpopular ideas, like radical feminism!

'those exercising academic freedom in search of their ‘truth’ have the responsibility to recognise the need for others to debate with them'. I agree with this, that's why we need outside speakers like Linda Bellos or Germaine Greeror even right-wingers who we despiseto come to debate in universities.