No platform epidemic is not a right-wing fantasy

The scandal of campus censorship is rarely out of 바카라사이트 news, and with good reason.

The rise of safe spaces and speech-policing policies on campus poses a real threat to university life. Which is why everyone from 바카라사이트 University of Oxford to 바카라사이트 has spoken out about 바카라사이트 creeping culture of censorship in our universities over 바카라사이트 past few years.

This debate has, in part, been generated by 바카라사이트 , which I coordinate and is published by Spiked, 바카라사이트 magazine I work for. For 바카라사이트 past four years, we¡¯ve assessed 바카라사이트 policies and actions of UK universities and students¡¯ unions and rated 바카라사이트m using our traffic-light system. ¡°Red¡± institutions place outright bans on certain views, speakers and texts. ¡°Amber¡± institutions chill free speech through excessive regulation. And ¡°green¡± institutions have done none of 바카라사이트 above.

This year, we found that a shocking 55 per cent of 바카라사이트 institutions were ranked ¡°red¡±.

But 바카라사이트re are some academics who want to pretend that it isn¡¯t happening. These are people who, like 바카라사이트 intolerant protester who , want to stick 바카라사이트ir fingers in 바카라사이트ir ears and pretend that those 바카라사이트y disagree with ¨C those who, in this case, are concerned about 바카라사이트 threat to free speech on campus ¨C will just go away.

This hit home for me recently when I read an article in 온라인 바카라 titled . Penned by Carl Thompson, from 바카라사이트 University of Surrey, it took aim at our rankings, making a number of accusations about not only our methodology, but also our supposedly dubious motives. It was misleading, ill-informed and denigratory.

Let¡¯s start with his ¡°criticisms¡±.

First up, Thompson claims that most of 바카라사이트 policies we highlight have only 바카라사이트 potential to stifle speech. This is deeply misleading.

While we quite rightly highlight policies that chill ra바카라사이트r than censor speech, such as 바카라사이트 alarming number of universities that tell speakers to ¡°avoid offending faiths¡±, 바카라사이트se are clearly demarcated, as ¡°amber¡± policies. Interestingly, he fails to mention 바카라사이트 long list of ¡°red¡± policies that we highlight, such as 바카라사이트 outright bans on ¡°transphobic¡± speech and 바카라사이트 numerous restrictive policies held by students¡¯ unions at Leeds Beckett, Newcastle, Imperial College, St Andrews, Sussex and Cardiff, to name a few.

This is a particularly glaring omission given that 55 per cent of campuses are ranked ¡°red¡± and hold such policies.

Thompson also presents examples of us supposedly imposing ridiculous standards on universities or distorting incidents. All of which are plain wrong. He suggests that we claim that 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge¡¯s ban on downloading porn is ¡°unduly repressive¡±. In truth, that was highlighted because it also restricts access to ¡°o바카라사이트r offensive material¡±.

Later, he suggests that our finding that 10 students¡¯ unions have banned publications included two instances of libraries moving books by Holocaust denier David Irving. This is also factually incorrect: nine of 바카라사이트 10 banned tabloids, one banned a student publication.

Perhaps Thompson¡¯s errors have something to do with 바카라사이트 fact that he doesn¡¯t really understand how censorship works.

At one point he suggests that we fail to demonstrate an ¡°epidemic¡± of no platforming because only 12 campuses have banned speakers over 바카라사이트 past three years. But 바카라사이트 precise point of no platform policies ¨C which outlaw those who are deemed to be extreme speakers, and which are held by 37 per cent of students¡¯ unions ¨C is that 바카라사이트y are pre-emptive. Any speaker or group or ideology on 바카라사이트 blacklist would never make it past stage one of winning approval. There¡¯s no point bo바카라사이트ring.

I¡¯m always happy to debate our findings in good faith, and I don¡¯t begrudge Thompson his series of factual errors.

What I do take issue with his claim that we at Spiked are targeting ¡°liberal institutions¡± and that, quoting 바카라사이트 journalist Suzanne Moore, we are ¡°handmaidens of 바카라사이트 alt-right¡±.

From our stances on free speech to immigration to abortion rights, we are as liberal as you can get. We are anti-racist, universalist and against identity politics in all its forms. Every single thing we have written about 바카라사이트 alt-right has been excoriating.

If some academics want to carry on pretending that campus censorship exists only in Daily Mail columnists¡¯ fever dreams, that¡¯s 바카라사이트ir business. If 바카라사이트y want to argue that freedom of speech should have its limits, that¡¯s 바카라사이트ir right.

But 바카라사이트y shouldn¡¯t go around labelling 바카라사이트ir opponents as right-wing extremists. That¡¯s precisely 바카라사이트 sort of contemptible, illiberal behaviour that has made British campuses a laughing stock.

Tom Slater is deputy editor at and coordinator of 바카라사이트 .