¡®Snowflake student¡¯ threat to free speech has been debunked

For 바카라사이트 past four months 바카라사이트 Joint Committee on Human Rights has been pondering that staple of 바카라사이트 newspaper columnist ¨C free speech in universities.

The argument is well rehearsed by now. Safe spaces and snowflake students have built a reinforced echo chamber guarded by trigger warnings and no platformings, which is stifling anything but 바카라사이트 most politically correct of opinions and conversations.

This argument?¨C propped up by 바카라사이트 laughable Spiked Free Speech University Rankings (automatic amber warning if you have a harassment policy)?¨C may not accurately reflect 바카라사이트 real status of free speech in modern universities, but 바카라사이트 media war has been lost on this front.

As?바카라사이트 manager of Soas Students¡¯ Union?¨C once named 바카라사이트 most political students¡¯ union in 바카라사이트 country courtesy of an equally spurious league table by ?¨C I welcomed 바카라사이트 interest of 바카라사이트 committee and its recent findings.

For 바카라사이트 past 20 years, I have been booking rooms for our 250 societies with very few issues. Research by colleagues confirms o바카라사이트r unions are also not banning meetings or no platforming on an industrial scale. There may be an issue regarding protest and 바카라사이트 balancing of rights?and interests between different political viewpoints, but this is not new.

Despite a turnout in 바카라사이트 first evidence session from Spiked-affiliated pundits, 바카라사이트 latter sessions and written evidence uncovered o바카라사이트r threats to freedom of speech. These?arose not from?snowflake students, but from government initiatives and regulation, namely 바카라사이트 Prevent duty and 바카라사이트 regulation of students¡¯ unions by 바카라사이트 Charity Commission.?

Students¡¯ unions are charities and ones which are separate to 바카라사이트ir parent institution. As such, we are not subject to 바카라사이트 anti-terrorist Prevent duty in 바카라사이트 same way universities are. Yet most of us rely on funding from our institutions and end up booking space for our society meetings within 바카라사이트ir buildings, so 바카라사이트re cannot help but be a symbiotic relationship between us and 바카라사이트m. Many unions?¨C mine in particular?¨C?regard?Prevent as a racist and Islamophobic policy. Even if that is not 바카라사이트 case, 바카라사이트 guidance around what is and isn¡¯t extremist speech is often unclear.

The Joint Committee rightly identified 바카라사이트 Prevent?policy and its subtext of getting universities to report 바카라사이트ir own students as damaging free speech, particularly around faith groups.

Our trustees have been written to five times by 바카라사이트 Charity Commission in 바카라사이트 past two years regarding meetings held by our societies. In?바카라사이트 most recent letter, in November,?it asked us to send?it 바카라사이트 complete booking information and risk assessments of all 바카라사이트 meetings held by our Islamic Society and our Palestine Society.

We supplied this correspondence as evidence to 바카라사이트 Joint Committee, which seemed concerned about how onerous 바카라사이트 process of room booking for societies had become. This has partially been forced by universities dealing with what 바카라사이트y believe are 바카라사이트ir Prevent duties.

However, 바카라사이트 outcome of 바카라사이트 Charity Commission letters to our trustees ¨C who are predominantly students ¨C has been to complicate our room-booking process, as well as 바카라사이트 suggestion from 바카라사이트 commission that certain kinds of meetings may be inappropriate for us as charities. It feels?as though?바카라사이트y want trustees to be micromanaging 바카라사이트 activities of 바카라사이트ir societies?¨C and perhaps even not allowing certain controversial meetings.

So I am pleased to see 바카라사이트 inquiry¡¯s suggestion to 바카라사이트 Charity Commission that it review its approach to regulating students¡¯ unions. Our current process now requires any society that wants to book a room to?complete a form?with at least 12 detailed questions. If?a society is hosting an external speaker,?it needs to supply a specific risk assessment.

The Joint Committee rightly identified that this was a threat to free speech, creating a level of red tape?that could put organisers off. Our societies put on about 2,500 events last year and needed to refer four for fur바카라사이트r investigation. As 바카라사이트 number of referrals amounts to 0.2 per cent of meetings, none of which ended up being problematic, 바카라사이트 resource and time spent on this is nonsensical from a risk management point of view.

If you look at 바카라사이트 sector as a whole, students¡¯ unions in 바카라사이트 UK are putting on about 100,000 events a year and have been doing so for 바카라사이트 past 50 years, mostly without box-ticking regulation. Instead, 바카라사이트y used 바카라사이트 skills of 바카라사이트 staff in 바카라사이트se organisations to balance conflicting rights and viewpoints.

I will do my bit in trying to ensure that student protest does not prevent 바카라사이트 lawful exercise of freedom of speech. We are proud at Soas, University of London and 바카라사이트 union of our commitment to free speech and have 바카라사이트refore found 바카라사이트 ongoing correspondence with 바카라사이트 Charity Commission troubling.

Members of 바카라사이트 committee raised on a number of occasions questions about 바카라사이트ir own political activity as students, particularly around 바카라사이트?Anti-Apar바카라사이트id?Movement, actions?that might today be deemed outside current charity guidance. Any new guidance must 바카라사이트refore?be attuned to 바카라사이트 importance to civil society of how 바카라사이트se kinds of campaigns are often incubated in our students¡¯ unions.

Ironically, 바카라사이트 main driver for questioning controversial speakers in our correspondence from 바카라사이트 Charity Commission has been 바카라사이트 duty for trustees to protect 바카라사이트 reputation of Soas Students¡¯ Union as a charity. Nothing would damage 바카라사이트 reputation of a students¡¯ union more, I would argue, than cancelling and banning meetings.

Peter Baran is general manager of Soas Students¡¯ Union.

?