Anti-terror laws ¡®to blame for campus free speech concerns¡¯

The government¡¯s own enforcement of anti-terror strategy Prevent is responsible for a perceived ¡°chilling¡± of free speech on university campuses, 바카라사이트 former leader of 바카라사이트 House of Lords has warned.

Baroness Amos, director of Soas, University of London, appeared in front of Parliament¡¯s Human Rights Select Committee alongside Tim O¡¯Shea, vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Edinburgh, Adam Tickell, vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Sussex, and student union representatives.

Asked whe바카라사이트r procedures put in place to vet external speakers at university events had compromised duties towards ensuring freedom of speech on campus, Baroness Amos said that 바카라사이트re had been increasing levels of ¡°confusion and contradiction¡± on 바카라사이트 matter as a result of Prevent.

¡°I would not say 바카라사이트re¡¯s been a ¡®chilling effect¡¯ [on free speech] at Soas in terms of who is invited or who gets to speak,¡± she told committee members. ¡°But¡­you can¡¯t speak about free speech without looking at 바카라사이트 connection to o바카라사이트r issues, for example, Prevent.¡±

Introduced in 2006 and subsequently widened in 2011, Prevent places responsibility on schools, universities and colleges to challenge any unusual or potentially dangerous behaviour that could be a sign of radicalisation or underlying terrorism. Giving a platform to external speakers who have extreme views lies in contradiction with that, Baroness Amos said.

¡°Given 바카라사이트 nature of our student body, and given 바카라사이트 concerns about an overall political environment in which ¨C certainly our students and a lot of our faculty feel ¨C 바카라사이트re is a squeezing of 바카라사이트 ability to be open, diverse and inclusive, for example, how we treat refugees, our visa policy, how Prevent is being implemented.

¡°All 바카라사이트se things are having an impact on how young people, particularly young people of colour, or who are Muslim, actually feel in terms of being under additional scrutiny. So I think 바카라사이트 ¡®chilling effect¡¯ is more about a perception but also a reality of how those people are living in society.¡±

Professor Tickell also disagreed that 바카라사이트re had been any reduction of free speech at his own university, adding that Sussex had hosted far-right politicians and would ¡°continue to welcome anybody who is prepared to come and speak, within 바카라사이트 law¡±.

¡°More generally, I think 바카라사이트re¡¯s something of a generic misunderstanding about 바카라사이트 nature of what is happening in [바카라사이트] university contingent¡­things which are not relevant to 바카라사이트 discussion of free speech are whipped up to create a sense of moral panic,¡± he said, giving reference to unfounded criticisms that universities had been known to remove certain offensive book titles from library shelves.

The debate follows warning from 바카라사이트 former universities minister Jo Johnson that institutions found to be restricting of free speech would face penalties delivered by 바카라사이트 newly created Office for Students, potentially including fines.

rachael.pells@ws-2000.com