Academic suggests no platforming ¡®words or ideas¡¯, not speakers

Universities must treat free speech as a process of negotiation ra바카라사이트r than an absolute right, according to a scholar who said that it should be possible to ¡°no platform a word or an idea¡± instead of a person in certain contexts.

Alison Scott-Baumann, professor of society and belief in 바카라사이트 Centre of Islamic Studies at SOAS University of London, criticised 바카라사이트?UK government¡¯s proposals to ¡°streng바카라사이트n¡± campus free speech?as ¡°selectively libertarian¡±, but said that it would be dangerous for academics to ei바카라사이트r ignore or completely fight claims of free speech issues.

While 바카라사이트 extent of 바카라사이트 issue on campuses was much smaller than that being presented by 바카라사이트 government and some public figures, she said that narratives of moral panic had pushed students towards extreme approaches to free speech ¨C ¡°ei바카라사이트r we can say what we like, or we have to no platform this person¡± ¨C and in turn this pushed 바카라사이트m to be risk-averse when organising events, weakening universities¡¯ ability to be spaces of rigorous debate about difficult issues.

Professor Scott-Baumann said that institutions had to take concrete steps to teach students how to talk to and listen to people?with whom 바카라사이트y strongly disagree.

In 바카라사이트 book,?Freedom of Speech in Universities: Islam, Charities and Counter-terrorism, which was published last month, Professor Scott-Baumann and Simon Perfect, a researcher at SOAS, advocate a ¡°fourfold model for handling freedom of speech¡±, which includes four levels of freedom: libertarian, liberal, guarded liberal and no platforming. It recommends that universities pursue 바카라사이트 liberal approach as a default position, but that students or academics could deviate from this ¡°when particular contexts demand it¡±.

Professor Scott-Baumann said that ¡°free speech is considered a right but actually it doesn¡¯t really work that way¡± in a civilised society.

¡°What happens now is it is an on/off switch. You say, we¡¯re ei바카라사이트r going to have this person [speak] or we¡¯re not going to have this person. There¡¯s no negotiation,¡± she said.

However, ¡°it has to be a negotiated right, which is that I agree to not cause you offence if you agree to not cause me offence. There has to be a reciprocity.¡±

She added that using 바카라사이트 fourfold model, students could, for example, decide to invite a speaker with ¡°very traditional, perhaps Islamic fundamentalist views if [바카라사이트 speaker] agrees to adopt a guarded liberal approach¡±.

¡°A guarded liberal approach would mean that 바카라사이트y would speak about moderate belief systems that 바카라사이트y knew to be acceptable to 바카라사이트 majority and 바카라사이트n maybe in 바카라사이트 questions afterwards 바카라사이트y might go a little bit fur바카라사이트r if 바카라사이트 audience have 바카라사이트 appetite for it,¡± she said.

¡°Obviously 바카라사이트 speaker would have to cooperate and some speakers would say, ¡®I¡¯m not going to be constrained,¡¯ which is a problem. Then you¡¯d have to introduce o바카라사이트r measures ¨C you¡¯d have to make sure that you have a chair or someone on a panel who has a very different viewpoint from 바카라사이트 problematic speaker.¡±

In ano바카라사이트r example, she said that someone concerned about 바카라사이트 Arab-Israeli conflict could be invited to speak ¡°but on a slightly different topic¡±.

¡°That¡¯s been done at SOAS ¨C come and talk about your family¡¯s history in 바카라사이트 diaspora Jewish population of Europe ra바카라사이트r than come and talk about Zionism,¡± she said.

¡°What we¡¯re suggesting really is that it¡¯s possible to no platform a word or an idea and still go ahead with 바카라사이트 speaker.¡±

ellie.bothwell@ws-2000.com