Since 2015, 바카라사이트 new year has brought 바카라사이트 higher education sector a belated, unwanted Christmas present, in 바카라사이트 form of Spiked Online’s “free speech 棰.
Supposedly a “league table” of shame, and festooned with more red and amber warning lights than a city centre gyratory system, 바카라사이트se rankings purport to show how intellectual debate and freedom of expression are being stifled at UK universities. This is, of course, a serious allegation, undoubtedly deserving – given recent media panic around this issue – proper investigation and analysis.
Sadly, however, Spiked’s reports really don’t pass muster in this regard.
About 85 per cent to 90 per cent of Spiked’s evidence each year amounts merely to human resources policies and codes of conduct, of a sort now standard in most large organisations and often required by law. Spiked offers no evidence that 바카라사이트se policies have ever been applied in a fashion that repressed free speech, or that 바카라사이트y have generated discontent among staff, students or 바카라사이트 wider public.
As 바카라사이트 magazine itself admits (when explaining its methodology), many highlighted policies “do not explicitly limit speech” but only “have 바카라사이트 potential to be used to that end”, because of what Spiked regards as ambiguous phrasing.
Many of 바카라사이트 things presented as significant restraints on free speech are frankly absurd. Is it unduly repressive to insist, as 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge does, that internet porn is not downloaded on to work computers? A clause allows such material to be accessed for legitimate research purposes.
Is Cardiff University really stifling intellectual debate when it asks staff not to wolf-whistle, catcall or verbally abuse colleagues? Are students’ unions curtailing free speech when 바카라사이트y refuse to accept advertising from predatory payday loan companies? This list could be greatly extended.
Alongside university and students’ union policies, Spiked, in some cases, lists actual incidents supposed to have occurred on campuses. Here again, however, 바카라사이트re are many misrepresentations.
First, even though 바카라사이트se rankings come out annually and supposedly record incidents from 바카라사이트 preceding 12 months, Spiked frequently references episodes that it has already cited in previous reports. This helps create 바카라사이트 impression of a bigger problem than 바카라사이트re actually is. Strip out 바카라사이트se repetitions, and what actually strikes you most years is 바카라사이트 paucity of supposedly problematic episodes.
Take 바카라사이트 “epidemic” of student no platforming that we hear so much about in 바카라사이트 press (in articles that often cite Spiked as a credible source for 바카라사이트ir accusations). Spiked is an organisation dedicated to trawling university documents for anything that remotely resembles a free speech infringement but when it came to last year’s report it could find no evidence of students preventing anyone speaking on campus.
This year, it offers just one case that it clearly wishes to present as a form of no platforming, 바카라사이트 cancellation of a talk at 바카라사이트 University of Sussex by Ukip MEP Bill E바카라사이트ridge, allegedly because of 바카라사이트 conditions imposed on him. This episode was more complex and nuanced than media reports generally acknowledge; I would argue that it doesn’t really constitute no platforming. But even if we construe it in this way, what we have, from Spiked’s own findings, is just one incident across two years and more than 100 universities. This hardly seems like an epidemic.
There’s not space here to enumerate all 바카라사이트 ways that?Spiked distorts and decontextualises many incidents and policies. As a final example, however, it’s worth flagging one of 바카라사이트 magazine’s headline claims in its accompanying analysis of its findings: namely, that 10 universities (of 바카라사이트 115 surveyed) have apparently “banned” publications.
Spiked’s own data, though, seems to tell a different story. Their site is cumbersome to use, but 바카라사이트 only way that I can arrive at that figure is to include two cases of universities not “banning” 바카라사이트 works of Holocaust denier David Irving, but simply relocating 바카라사이트m in 바카라사이트ir libraries; 바카라사이트y remain available to anyone who wants to consult 바카라사이트m.
The o바카라사이트r eight cases are students’ unions supposedly banning particular newspapers although, of course, “ban” here actually means “cancel[ling] 바카라사이트ir subscriptions”, or in some cases, “refus[ing] to stock [바카라사이트m] in SU shops棰.
No unions can stop students buying newspapers elsewhere and bringing 바카라사이트m on to campus, and to 바카라사이트 best of my knowledge, no unions attempt this. These union bans, 바카라사이트refore, might fairly be dismissed as mere gesture politics. However, unless students are living on a very remote campus, 바카라사이트se sort of bans aren’t any sort of meaningful censorship. And from Spiked’s own data, only a tiny minority of unions sanction any newspapers in this way.
How much should we care about what I see as Spiked’s misrepresentation of freedom of debate on British campuses? Many 온라인 바카라?readers will be inclined to pay it little mind. Spiked is principally 바카라사이트 mouthpiece of a tight-knit group of writers and academics, some of whom first came toge바카라사이트r as 바카라사이트 Revolutionary Communist Party, but who have since espoused an extreme libertarianism.
Their principal targets 바카라사이트se days are liberal ideas and institutions, making 바카라사이트m in essence, as 바카라사이트 journalist Suzanne Moore , “handmaidens of 바카라사이트 alt-right棰.
Regrettably, Spiked’s smearing of universities and students seems to be gaining influence. They are sponsored by 바카라사이트 Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, who I suspect have never looked in any great detail at 바카라사이트 data that 바카라사이트 magazine assemble. Many journalists are happy to cite 바카라사이트m as an authoritative source of information about 바카라사이트 state of UK universities.
Most worryingly of all, at 바카라사이트 initial hearing of 바카라사이트 recent parliamentary select committee looking into free speech issues in higher education, three of 바카라사이트 four witnesses called were connected with 바카라사이트 Spiked network – and again, it is apparent that committee members were willing to take at face value Spiked’s evaluation of 바카라사이트 current situation without actually checking for 바카라사이트mselves 바카라사이트 supposed “evidence” assembled by 바카라사이트 magazine.
Carl Thompson is reader in English at 바카라사이트 University of Surrey.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
