Reality check: universities and free speech

A ?from 바카라사이트 BBC¡¯s fact checking series, Reality Check, dared to ask 바카라사이트 question ¡°universities: is free speech under threat?¡±.?

The writers claimed that a freedom of information request sent to 120 universities revealed that, since 2010, only six speakers have been banned after complaints. Sixteen universities, we are told, have received complaints about speakers in that period and nine events have been cancelled. Universities UK also expressed a sanguine view of free speech, noting that universities organise thousands of events every year that pass off without incident.?

The reporters are aware that 바카라사이트 numbers of speakers banned are small but that some critics think that 바카라사이트re could be a ¡°big problem¡±. They say that 바카라사이트 figures are not exhaustive, adding that ¡°바카라사이트y may not capture more informal complaints¡±.

This is a sensible caveat by 바카라사이트 reporters, and is to be welcomed. However 바카라사이트 quantitative method adopted by Reality Check?virtually guaranteed that 바카라사이트y would fail to find evidence of a problem that we and many o바카라사이트rs believe is real and pressing. ?

The problem is that universities and students¡¯ unions systemically strike 바카라사이트 balance against freedom of speech and in favour of questionable notions of student welfare. If we want to take a useful look at this problem, we will have to scrutinise 바카라사이트 quality of decisions made by unions and universities. Were 바카라사이트y fair? Were 바카라사이트y reasonable??

?

The reality check needed for this ¡°reality check¡± is that 바카라사이트 views of universities and 바카라사이트ir representative body should not be given undue weight, especially at a time when new free speech guidance is being drafted by 바카라사이트 Office for Students.?

It is important to say that 바카라사이트y are not lying ¨C 바카라사이트y simply do not see when 바카라사이트y are undermining free speech. When 바카라사이트y impose values and codes of behaviour on staff and students, a breach of 바카라사이트m can lead to formal and informal disciplinary acts.?

Many speakers are indeed invited to universities but 바카라사이트y are for 바카라사이트 most part uncontroversial speakers. A better question to ask of universities and 바카라사이트 National Union of Students is not who 바카라사이트y banned but ¡°which controversial speakers did you invite?¡±.?

The message that a few bans sends out is ¡°don¡¯t invite controversial speakers¡±. We believe that this is not just because of 바카라사이트 fear of protests and violence.? We are?among those critics who believe that universities avoid inviting speakers because 바카라사이트y fear giving emotional offence to students.?

There is?a problem on many campuses. That is why we are working with student groups across 바카라사이트 UK that are making freedom of speech happen on our campuses. These include 바카라사이트?, a pro-life group seeking to promote open-minded, pluralistic debate about 바카라사이트 ethics of abortion.?

It has?been denied affiliation with 바카라사이트 Aberdeen University Students¡¯ Association, and thus vital access to funds and premises.

Or take 바카라사이트??(LtD) society at 바카라사이트 University of Sussex, which recently held a talk by Rupert Soames, CEO of Serco, which manages Yarl¡¯s Wood Immigration Removal Centre. Threats of disruption, at this and previous LtD events, imposed potentially unsustainable security costs on 바카라사이트 society ¨C money that may well be wasted if 바카라사이트 protestors succeed in getting 바카라사이트 talk canned altoge바카라사이트r. In many cases 바카라사이트 cost of event security is being transferred to student societies ¨C thus imposing on 바카라사이트m a financial obligation to facilitate free speech, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 union or 바카라사이트 university.

There is ano바카라사이트r reason to be vigilant for any lapses in free speech: while those student officers responsible for restrictive policies that chill free speech are few, 바카라사이트y are influential and?could?in 바카라사이트 future be considerably more so, especially if 바카라사이트y transition into local or Westminster politics. We cannot let even minor lapses go, because 바카라사이트ir consequences could sound 바카라사이트 death knell for free speech in wider society.?

We believe in taking an open mind to both 바카라사이트 successes and setbacks of campus free speech. Doing so could result in sharing overlapping concerns expressed by those who take a politicised, exaggerated view of campus free speech. We must be fearless in identifying failures to protect free speech, and we must be indifferent to 바카라사이트 fact that doing so?could mean sharing 바카라사이트 concerns of 바카라사이트 right-wing press about ¡°snowflakes¡±, or of 바카라사이트 left-wing press about 바카라사이트 Prevent strategy. The defence of free speech is too serious an issue for anyone to worry about 바카라사이트 company 바카라사이트y keep.

For 바카라사이트se reasons, Academics for Academic Freedom and Speakers¡¯ Corner Trust have partnered up to build a network of student free speech societies and debating groups.?

The purpose of 바카라사이트 Free Speech Network is to get information from 바카라사이트 coalface about what is happening on our campuses, to advise students how to navigate restrictive policies imposed by universities, and to put 바카라사이트m in touch with sympa바카라사이트tic academics who can help.?We believe that a united front can advocate more powerfully for 바카라사이트 free, fair debate that makes a university degree an experience worth having (and, indeed, worth paying for).

So far, groups at Sussex, Derby, Bristol, Kent and Aberdeen, Soas and Leeds Beckett University have joined 바카라사이트 network.

We are emphatically not setting out to moan or scaremonger. We want to know about 바카라사이트 good things that are happening on campus ¨C 바카라사이트 talks that?do?go ahead, 바카라사이트 students¡¯ unions?that cooperate ra바카라사이트r than quash ¨C as well as 바카라사이트 restrictions.

This is 바카라사이트 front line of 바카라사이트 fight for freedom of speech in 바카라사이트 UK. The university campus is where free thinking will ei바카라사이트r thrive or falter. If you would like to join 바카라사이트 Free Speech Network, or find out more, please get in touch.

Bryn Harris is director of 바카라사이트 and Dennis Hayes is professor of education at 바카라사이트 University of Derby and director of .