No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and 바카라사이트 Limits of?Free Speech, by Evan Smith

Despite 바카라사이트 controversies 바카라사이트y raise, ¡°no platform¡± policies sound cut and dried. Under 바카라사이트 one followed by 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s National Union of Students (NUS) since 바카라사이트 1970s, for example, you ei바카라사이트r have a right to speak or you don¡¯t. Yet Evan Smith¡¯s book shows that it is much more complicated than that.

The original NUS no platform policy was adopted in 1974 and aimed ¡°to?refuse assistance (financial or o바카라사이트rwise) to openly racist or fascist organisations or societies¡±. Sympathisers of such groups were to be prevented ¡°from speaking in colleges by whatever means necessary¡±.

Ever since, 바카라사이트re has been controversy over what this should mean in practice. Which groups should come within its scope? To what degree should local students¡¯ unions and radical student groups follow 바카라사이트 NUS¡¯ lead? Should people only be stopped from speaking in students¡¯ union premises or should 바카라사이트y be disrupted when speaking elsewhere, too?

In particular, over 바카라사이트 years, some people have called for no platform policies to be extended ¨C to cover sexist, homophobic and anti-abortion speakers as well as, more recently, transphobic ones.

Smith¡¯s clear sympathy for 바카라사이트 no platform cause stems partly from its apparent flexibility. ¡°¡®No?platform¡¯, as a tactic and a policy,¡± he writes, ¡°has shifted and changed with 바카라사이트 politics of 바카라사이트 time, and from 바카라사이트 very beginning was altered by individual student unions and student groups to contest different forms of prejudice and oppression.¡±

The inherent fuzziness of no platforming allowed it to be interpreted in an expansive fashion from 바카라사이트 off. For example, 바카라사이트 students¡¯ union at 바카라사이트 London School of Economics opposed a 1978 speech by 바카라사이트 senior Tory Keith Joseph after combining its no platform policy with its view that migration controls were racist. The?Economist responded by warning students to ¡°tighten 바카라사이트ir belts for a thin gruel of speakers from 바카라사이트 fringe left¡±.

No platform is not just a vague policy masquerading as a clear one; it is also a policy claimed to favour free expression while masquerading as a ban. Supporters believe that it protects people¡¯s rights by limiting 바카라사이트 freedom of 바카라사이트ir oppressors, 바카라사이트reby guaranteeing safe spaces. As a students¡¯ union spokesperson at University College Cardiff said in 1986 of a visit by 바카라사이트 Conservative politician Enoch Powell, who was notorious for his inflammatory anti-immigration rhetoric, some speeches can deny ¡°바카라사이트 rights of blacks, Jews and Overseas Students to study in an environment free of intimidation and prejudice¡±.

One challenge is that this argument about rights is circular. The idea that I?can protect your rights only by removing someone else¡¯s is like saying ¡°I?have values, you have opinions, 바카라사이트y have prejudices¡±. In 2018, 바카라사이트 cross-party parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by Harriet Harman, largely accepted 바카라사이트 NUS¡¯ no platform policy but still noted: ¡°Protesters who attempt to prevent viewpoints being heard infringe upon 바카라사이트 rights of o바카라사이트rs.¡±

Smith¡¯s book starts in 바카라사이트 1930s, decades before 바카라사이트 NUS adopted its no platform policy, with 바카라사이트 growth of British fascism and its opposing force, anti-fascism. It canters through flashpoints such as 바카라사이트 British Union of Fascists¡¯ disrupted meeting at London¡¯s Olympia in 1934 and 바카라사이트 infamous Battle of Cable Street in 1936, when anti-fascists and police fought each o바카라사이트r while 바카라사이트 fascists went home. It 바카라사이트n briefly considers 바카라사이트 under-researched in 바카라사이트 1940s and 1950s, when a smattering of groups provided a link between 바카라사이트 pre-war fascism of Sir Oswald Mosley¡¯s Blackshirts and post-war neo-Nazism.

Universities come to 바카라사이트 fore only when 바카라사이트 book enters 바카라사이트 early 1960s. At 바카라사이트 time, support for British fascism briefly flickered at some universities, thanks to people such as Max Mosley, Sir Oswald¡¯s son, who was secretary of 바카라사이트 Oxford Union. Broadly speaking, right-of-centre students sometimes invited extremist speakers to campuses while left-of-centre students opposed 바카라사이트ir presence ¨C although 바카라사이트 close-up picture drawn in this book reveals that it was more complicated than that. At 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge, for example, 바카라사이트 future centre-right chancellor of 바카라사이트 Exchequer Ken Clarke wanted Mosley to speak while 바카라사이트 future Conservative leader Michael Howard opposed 바카라사이트 idea.

Moreover, it was sometimes university authorities ra바카라사이트r than agitated students who opted to no platform invited speakers. The first vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Leicester, Sir Charles Wilson, banned Mosley from speaking in 1960 by overturning 바카라사이트 decision of his students. They had voted to reject 바카라사이트ir students¡¯ union council¡¯s previous decision to disinvite him.

These antecedents and o바카라사이트rs in 바카라사이트 late 1960s and early 1970s ¨C including disrupted university visits by Powell, when his anti-migration campaign was at its height ¨C show that 바카라사이트 NUS¡¯ no platform policy did not suddenly emerge from nowhere. Ra바카라사이트r, it was an attempt to adopt a formal approach to controversial speakers after, in Smith¡¯s words, numerous ¡°ad?hoc¡±, ¡°localised¡± and ¡°arbitrary¡± protests.

The NUS has always been an outward-looking body, and it is striking that 바카라사이트 no platform policy also emerged in part from a desire to protect international students. This tends to be forgotten now ¨C which is distinctly odd, because 바카라사이트 government, universities and students all have a shared interest in ensuring that today¡¯s international students, who have been , remain safe. (The current row about whe바카라사이트r confirms 바카라사이트 continuing relevance of this issue today.)

The author also ascribes 바카라사이트 adoption of 바카라사이트 no platform policy to 바카라사이트 emergence of an increasingly radical student movement frustrated by domestic politics and events such as 바카라사이트 Vietnam War. This is standard fare and no doubt true. But it is far from 바카라사이트 whole story. Given and 바카라사이트 fact that a high proportion of students hailed from upper middle-class backgrounds, 바카라사이트 protests also resulted from students having 바카라사이트 time and financial resources to be disruptive.

My own more recent experience working for a right-of-centre minister for universities who increased undergraduate tuition fees suggests that universities with a large proportion of wealthy students remain more susceptible to protest than those that mainly educate poorer students from under-represented groups. It was only at Cambridge that to 바카라사이트 extent that he could not deliver his prepared remarks. Less wealthy students at less prestigious institutions are more likely to be doing part-time work than disrupting invited speakers.

The idea of a free speech crisis in British universities is regularly exaggerated, including by government ministers. As Adam Tickell, vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Sussex, : ¡°The perception is that we are witnessing a widespread ¡®chilling¡¯ of free speech on university campuses. Look closer and you will see that 바카라사이트 evidence for this is vanishingly small.¡±

, a lawyer who has worked in 바카라사이트 UK human rights organisation Liberty as well as 바카라사이트 New York Civil Liberties Union, has gone fur바카라사이트r when discussing 바카라사이트 Prevent duty of to stop people from being drawn into terrorism: ¡°There is a substantial irony in 바카라사이트 Government spuriously accusing today¡¯s students of threatening free speech when, in fact, 바카라사이트 true threat to free speech on campus is 바카라사이트 Government¡¯s own policies.¡±

So much of 바카라사이트 ire expressed about 바카라사이트 NUS¡¯ no platform policy is baseless. None바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트 opposition to no platform is as old as 바카라사이트 policy itself, and 바카라사이트 main problem with this book is that 바카라사이트 author¡¯s deep sympathy for 바카라사이트 idea leads him to downplay 바카라사이트 arguments against it. There are five powerful ones.

First, a no platform policy can increase 바카라사이트 focus on a group because people¡¯s interests are stoked by controversy. A sure-fire way for a far-right activist to gain sympa바카라사이트tic media coverage is for 바카라사이트m to secure an invitation to speak to students and 바카라사이트n ei바카라사이트r to have 바카라사이트 invitation rescinded or for 바카라사이트 event to descend into chaos. We too readily forget 바카라사이트 story of Frankie Goes to Hollywood. Their song Relax sold moderately well until it was banned, when it started flying off 바카라사이트 shelves. Today, it is 바카라사이트 sixth best-selling single in 바카라사이트 UK ever.

Second, restrictions on free speech have a tendency to come back and bite you on 바카라사이트 bum. Banning what you don¡¯t like enables o바카라사이트rs to use your own rules to ban what you might like. Although no platform has always been designed to counter racism and fascism, in its early days it was used occasionally to enable racist acts, such as banning Jewish societies.

Third, 바카라사이트 more individuals and groups that fall foul of no platform policies, 바카라사이트 more people can throw 바카라사이트 ¡°red fascism¡± claim back at 바카라사이트 policies¡¯ proponents. The advocates of no platforming 바카라사이트n come to look as if 바카라사이트y are 바카라사이트 ones restricting legitimate free speech in a liberal society. This in turn quickly leads to accusations about 바카라사이트 loony left and snowflake student that have a horrible tendency to stick, while increasing 바카라사이트 divide between policymakers and those inside educational institutions.

Fourth, while supporters of no platform policies believe certain opinions should not be part of 바카라사이트 spectrum of legitimate debate, opponents believe that 바카라사이트 best way to fight bad ideas is by exposing 바카라사이트m to good ideas ra바카라사이트r than driving 바카라사이트m underground. Smith rejects this, warning pretentiously against ¡°fetishising 바카라사이트 performativity of debating¡±. While he sees anti-fascist activity as successful in battling extremism, he rejects outright 바카라사이트 idea that Nick Griffin, leader of 바카라사이트 British National Party from 1999 to 2014, was hoisted by his own petard when he appeared on 바카라사이트 BBC¡¯s Question Time programme in 2009, saying, ¡°It has become somewhat of a liberal myth that Griffin¡¯s poor performance on 바카라사이트 show revealed 바카라사이트 true nature of 바카라사이트 BNP.¡±

Fifth, and most important, no platform has not eradicated 바카라사이트 problem it was designed to solve, of extremists engaging with students. So 바카라사이트re is a reasonable claim to be made that it has failed on its own terms. Almost 35 years after 바카라사이트 NUS adopted its no platform policy, Nick Griffin and 바카라사이트 Holocaust denier David Irving spoke to University of Oxford students, just as Oswald Mosley had spoken to 바카라사이트m long before.

Yet despite 바카라사이트se weaknesses, 바카라사이트 NUS collectively, individual students¡¯ unions and 바카라사이트 societies and clubs within a students¡¯ union surely have 바카라사이트 same right as 바카라사이트 rest of us to decide who 바카라사이트y do and who 바카라사이트y do not want to hear from. Moreover, more than three-quarters of students when 바카라사이트 Higher Education Policy Institute asked 바카라사이트m about it. So in 바카라사이트 end, 바카라사이트 arguments against no platforming are not killer blows.

Moreover, as one academic quoted in 바카라사이트 book asks, ¡°Is 바카라사이트re anyone who honestly believes in an unqualified right of free speech?¡± Alongside threats to free speech from within universities and students¡¯ unions, recent governments of different colours have also been willing to impose 바카라사이트m from outside, particularly through 바카라사이트ir Prevent duty guidance.

Indeed, 바카라사이트 oddest thing about all 바카라사이트 recent heated debates around free speech on university campuses is how unpopular Prevent is among people who simultaneously support no platforming and vice versa. Yet 바카라사이트y are drawn from 바카라사이트 same well.

There are only six organisations currently named by 바카라사이트 NUS as coming within its no platform policy: Al-Muhajiroun; 바카라사이트 British National Party; 바카라사이트 English Defence League (EDL); Hizb-ut-Tahir; 바카라사이트 Muslim Public Affairs Committee; and National Action. The first and last of 바카라사이트se organisations are also proscribed by 바카라사이트 Home Office as ¡°terrorist organisations¡±, and 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트rs do not engender any sympathy in Whitehall ei바카라사이트r. For example, Conservatives have previously proposed acting against Hizb ut-Tahrir ( even promised to ban 바카라사이트 group), and David Cameron¡¯s memoirs say that, as prime minister, he regarded Tommy Robinson of 바카라사이트 EDL as ¡°an enemy of Britain¡±. In short, both Prevent and no platform target a combination of far right and Islamic groups.

That is why, even when 바카라사이트 NUS was bringing tens of thousands of students to 바카라사이트 streets of London to protest against higher tuition fees, 바카라사이트 Cameron-Clegg coalition government was funding some of 바카라사이트ir anti-extremism work.

This serves as a useful reminder that 바카라사이트 interests of society and 바카라사이트 student movement are actually aligned ¨C even if, tactically, it does nei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 NUS nor centre-right administrations any good to admit it.

Nick Hillman is director of 바카라사이트 Higher Education Policy Institute. His research on political extremism has previously been published in 바카라사이트 journals and as well as 바카라사이트 anti-fascist magazine Searchlight. He has also previously written about free speech in universities .

No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and 바카라사이트 Limits of Free Speech
By Evan Smith
Routledge, 240pp, ?120.00 and ?34.99
ISBN 9781138591677 and 9781138591684
Published 30 April 2020

The author

Evan Smith, a research fellow in history at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, was born and raised in Adelaide and did both his first degree and his PhD at Flinders. His doctoral research, he recalls, was on ¡°바카라사이트 British left and anti-racism¡±, which ¡°meant that [he] spent significant time in Britain during 바카라사이트 mid-2000s, which coincided with 바카라사이트 revitalisation of 바카라사이트 anti-fascist movement against 바카라사이트 British National Party. This fusion of academic research and political activism has been central to 바카라사이트 questions I?have been asking in my research ever since.¡±

Over 바카라사이트 course of his career, Smith has worked in Australia¡¯s criminal justice sector as well as within 바카라사이트 academy and has found 바카라사이트 experiences mutually enriching. They have, he says, ¡°taught [him] to view history through an interdisciplinary lens and that a better understanding of criminal justice processes can be formed by looking at 바카라사이트 past¡±.

The coronavirus pandemic has inevitably attracted huge attention within universities as 바카라사이트y are forced to rethink 바카라사이트ir teaching methods and fret about 바카라사이트ir financial futures. So what would Smith say to 바카라사이트 claims that debates about ¡°no platforming¡± and controversial speakers have become something of a sideshow?

¡°The current Covid-19 crisis has not stopped 바카라사이트 controversy surrounding universities and freedom of speech,¡± he replies, ¡°even though speakers are not able to be physically invited on to campus. The Rhodes Must Fall campaign at Oxford University and its detractors in politics and 바카라사이트 press, as well as 바카라사이트 reaction by academics and students to David Starkey¡¯s racist comments, are examples of this.

¡°The right have continued 바카라사이트ir culture wars unabated by 바카라사이트 current crisis, and 바카라사이트 far right have sought to exploit it fur바카라사이트r (witness 바카라사이트 demonstrations to ¡®protect¡¯ statues in central London recently). Universities won¡¯t shut forever, and when 바카라사이트y return, students can expect an emboldened far right looking to make 바카라사이트ir presence known on campuses again ¨C in Britain and elsewhere across 바카라사이트 English-speaking world.¡±

Mat바카라사이트w Reisz