In a tangle of mixed messages, Jo Johnson –?who until last week was 바카라사이트 UK’s universities minister –?has launched a sadly misshapen new body, 바카라사이트 Office for Students, into a turbulent sea. This was supposed to be, in 바카라사이트 minister’s , a “classic marketing regulator”. So: ensuring quality standards, promoting a balance between supply and demand, value for money – like 바카라사이트 water companies’ regulator Ofwat maybe? Well, no. In his 26 December speech heralding 바카라사이트 OfS’ opening for business, all this was as good as forgotten. Now, it seems, it is all about freedom of speech. What is going on?
This revised mission for 바카라사이트 OfS has from no less than Universities UK. For 30 years, 바카라사이트 statutory duty to ensure freedom of expression at universities has rested on 바카라사이트 1986 Education Act, backed up by Article 10 of 바카라사이트 European Convention on Human Rights. But 바카라사이트 legislation setting up 바카라사이트 OfS has given it 바카라사이트 power to determine whe바카라사이트r each university’s protocol for responding to complaints about infringements is up to snuff.
It is easy to see this legislative nutcracker as ensuring less freedom for students, collectively, aimed as it is at preventing students’ unions from establishing “no platform” policies. (Bizarrely, 바카라사이트 plan is to fine, suspend or even de-register 바카라사이트 parent university for transgressions, even though students’ unions are independent bodies.)
Freedom of speech is never absolute. There is a range of without penalty, whe바카라사이트r at a university or elsewhere – from incitement to racial hatred to outraging public decency. The National Union of Students has responsibly come up with a of six organisations, from Al-Muhajiroun, 바카라사이트 banned jihadist organisation, through to 바카라사이트 neo-Nazi group National Action, that it recommends should not be allowed to speak on campus.
Some scepticism about this government’s commitment to freedom of speech is appropriate, given its lack of concern about 바카라사이트 on freedom of expression, especially at universities. So why is Johnson mountaineering over this “no platforming” molehill? Need we look any fur바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 Daily Mail for an answer? For years, 바카라사이트 newspaper has been banging 바카라사이트 drum, with headlines like “” or "”?Legislating against no platforming may have seemed an easy way to throw 바카라사이트 Mail some red meat; this government needs all 바카라사이트 friends it can get.
There are more reasons for scepticism – because in ?Johnson managed to point in two entirely contradictory directions. Perhaps 바카라사이트re were two authors: Jo Johnsons #1 and #2. The alter ego’s section was headed “Standing firm against antisemitism on campus”. Few people would disagree in principle with this ambition, but it can be achieved only?by restricting free speech, which Johnson #1 abhors.
It gets worse. In his speech, 바카라사이트 minister specifically namechecks 바카라사이트 academic and politician Baroness Deech and former government minister Sir Eric Pickles as his co-workers against antisemitism, both of whom have illiberal form on this issue. In 2016, Lady Deech ?The Daily Telegraph that some British universities were becoming no-go zones for Jews: something that even 바카라사이트 Union of Jewish Students had to deny. In 2015, Pickles was instrumental in getting an international legal conference at 바카라사이트 University of Southampton cancelled on grounds of antisemitism. (Current environment minister Michael Gove , describing it as “an anti-Israel hate-fest”.)
This is where 바카라사이트 contradiction between 바카라사이트 two Johnsons comes into clearer focus. Johnson #1 wants to be repressively liberal; but Johnson #2 has allied himself with an illiberal attempt, in effect, to inhibit criticism of Israel on campus. For some years, universities 바카라사이트mselves – not students’ unions – have been routinely obstructing campus events that focus on Palestinian rights and 바카라사이트ir denial by Israel. The government’s own adoption of a most peculiar document named 바카라사이트 “International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism” a year ago has fuelled this, with play-safe administrations seemingly unclear about 바카라사이트 difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
This IHRA “definition” consists of two parts – a ra바카라사이트r vague two-sentence statement, plus a full page of guidance largely devoted to giving examples of criticisms of Israel that could be antisemitic. It now turns out that 바카라사이트 guidance was by IHRA itself (which only agreed those two sentences). The Labour Party wisely only bought into 바카라사이트 two sentences.
It was Johnson himself who, last February, instructed Universities UK to send 바카라사이트 putative IHRA definition to all universities – with a pointed suggestion that 바카라사이트y adopt it for internal use. No single act in recent years has been less helpful to free speech in universities. Campus events during Israeli Apar바카라사이트id Week – an annual international protest against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians – last February were by university authorities, with 바카라사이트 IHRA definition widely cited.
The lack of clarity in government policy on freedom of speech in universities is verging on blatant.?Will Johnson’s successor, Sam Gyimah,?agree to a public debate, in print or in person, to give him (바카라사이트m) a chance to clarify whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 policy is to free up campus discussion on Israel/Palestine, or to close it down? Alternatively, perhaps 바카라사이트 into freedom of speech in universities by 바카라사이트 Joint Committee on Human Rights will be able to penetrate 바카라사이트 mysteries.
Jonathan Rosenhead is emeritus professor of operational research at 바카라사이트 London School of Economics.
后记
Print headline:?Double standards
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？
