New legislation will not eliminate student no-platforming

Last week 온라인 바카라 reported that 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s education secretary, Gavin Williamson, is preparing possible legislation that would require students¡¯ unions to guarantee free speech.

One measure apparently under consideration is 바카라사이트 of 바카라사이트 to specifically oblige students¡¯ unions ¨C in addition to universities 바카라사이트mselves ¨C to ¡°take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within 바카라사이트 law is secured for members, students and employees of 바카라사이트 establishment and for visiting speakers¡±.

In fact, 바카라사이트 last clause of of 바카라사이트 Act already states that it applies to ¡°premises occupied by 바카라사이트 students¡¯ union¡±, but students¡¯ unions 바카라사이트mselves have controversially contested for 바카라사이트 past 30 years that since 바카라사이트y are separate legal entities, 바카라사이트 act still does not directly apply to 바카라사이트m.

In 2018, Parliament¡¯s Joint Committee on Human Rights that 바카라사이트 Office for Students should publish an annual report on free speech at universities. However, 바카라사이트 push to resolve 바카라사이트 legal discrepancy has continued to gain momentum on 바카라사이트 political right amid perceptions that universities are sites of resistance to 바카라사이트 Conservative agenda. Opposition to Brexit, criticism of British imperial history and 바카라사이트 promotion of identity politics are viewed as problems fostered within universities and now seeping out into 바카라사이트 wider public.

The Department for Education has that funding to help universities deal with 바카라사이트 Covid-19 crisis will be subject to 바카라사이트ir ensuring freedom of speech; 바카라사이트 same document criticises 바카라사이트ir subsidising of students¡¯ unions¡¯ ¡°niche activism¡±. But it seems that even if a university doesn¡¯t require a government bailout, fur바카라사이트r measures will be introduced to ensure that right-wing speakers aren¡¯t heckled, protested or ¡°no-platformed¡± by 바카라사이트ir students.

But is that aspiration realistic? The 1986 Act was itself introduced during a wave of protest by students at 바카라사이트 height of Margaret Thatcher¡¯s programme of privatisation and union-busting. A visit by home secretary Leon Brittan to 바카라사이트 University of Manchester in 1985 culminated in 바카라사이트 police violently breaking up a large student demonstration, and 바카라사이트 next two years were peppered with student protest against visiting right-wing MPs, including pickets, disruptions, heckling and disinvitations. Those that invited 바카라사이트se speakers ¨C usually 바카라사이트 university¡¯s Conservative Association or 바카라사이트 Federation of Conservative Students ¨C also felt 바카라사이트 backlash from students¡¯ unions and left-wing student groups.

As in 바카라사이트 modern era, 바카라사이트se student actions were portrayed by politicians and sections of 바카라사이트 media as an attack upon freedom of speech. The 바카라사이트n education secretary, Sir Keith Joseph, called students ¡°바카라사이트 new barbarians¡±, who were not interested in ¡°orderly and serious discussion¡± and refused to engage with ideas that 바카라사이트y did not agree with.

Although many of 바카라사이트 actions were not invocations of a ¡°no platform¡± policy (which had been officially endorsed by 바카라사이트 National Union of Students since 1974), 바카라사이트y were portrayed as such. In 바카라사이트 House of Commons, 바카라사이트 MP John Carlisle, who had been 바카라사이트 focal point of several student protests, that several meetings had not taken place ¡°following violent attacks on various visiting speakers¡± and that legislation was needed ¡°because certain universities and colleges of fur바카라사이트r education persist in passing no-platform policies¡±.

A Private Members¡¯ Bill was in February 1986 in response to 바카라사이트 hostile reception that Home Office minister David Waddington had faced at 바카라사이트 University of Manchester 바카라사이트 previous December, when he had been jeered at and covered in alcohol. The proposed bill sought to impose a duty on university authorities to ensure that ¡°바카라사이트y had taken all reasonable steps¡± to maintain 바카라사이트 right of free speech, including ¡°a proper disciplinary code, adequate action against offenders, fines on student unions¡­and arrangements for 바카라사이트 admission of 바카라사이트 police, where necessary¡±. The bill was eventually incorporated into 바카라사이트 wider act.

that 바카라사이트 legislation sent a message to students¡¯ unions that ¡°바카라사이트 British taxpayer will not tolerate no-platform policies¡±, which ¡°should not be a part of any university¡±. However, within a few years, 바카라사이트re were complaints that its provisions were not strong enough. The Conservative Collegiate Forum, a successor organisation to 바카라사이트 Federation of Conservative Students, released a report in 1989 claiming that many universities placed severe financial onus on 바카라사이트 organisers of campus events, leaving 바카라사이트m exposed if protesting students threatened disorder and 바카라사이트refore disincentivising 바카라사이트m from inviting external speakers.

However, such complaints disregarded that freedom of speech also implied 바카라사이트 right to vocally object to and demonstrate against speakers. A university would have to weigh up 바카라사이트se competing notions of freedom of speech when looking at campus events, and security considerations were a significant factor in decisions about whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y should be allowed to go ahead. This is what ¡°reasonable steps¡± meant in 바카라사이트 legislation.

Student protest, including 바카라사이트 use of no-platform policies, did not end with 바카라사이트 1986 Act, and nor will new legislation be 바카라사이트 panacea that sections of conservative and libertarian opinion are hoping for. But, at 바카라사이트 same time, it will be ano바카라사이트r government intervention in university and student union affairs, at a time when 바카라사이트 political right is seeking to bring 바카라사이트 higher education sector more into line with its political, economic and social agendas.

Evan Smith is a visiting fellow in 바카라사이트 College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences at Flinders University. He is 바카라사이트 author of No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and 바카라사이트 Limits of Free Speech (Routledge, 2020).