The idea of a university as a free space rather than a safe space is vanishing

The idea of a university as a free space rather than a safe space is vanishing

You might have assumed that universities would be the last institutions in the country to censor. University is meant to be the place that blows away the cobwebs between your ears. Students are freed for the first time in their lives from the pressure to conform imposed by family and neighbourhood. They are yet to go into the workplace, where managerial hierarchies impose their own codes of silence. Lecturers and professors say they believe in academic freedom. The 1986 Education Act specifically obliges universities themselves to uphold freedom of speech under the law.

Yet all of the above counts for nought. I don’t know how you could measure intellectual deprivation. If you could, there’s a fair chance that universities would be among the most servile and conformist institutions in Britain.

The confused may also wonder about the targets of censorship. Atheists? Humanists? Surely the left believes in secularism and despises the superstitions that have held humanity back? Not so, and not for a long time. The speakers most likely to be prevented from enlightening students are speakers who uphold Enlightenment. They are targeted for the offence they cause, or ordered to stay silent. In the name of diversity, everyone must hold the same opinions, and remarkably reactionary opinions at that.

It was Goldsmith’s of course that saw the infamous attempt by Islamists to shout down the ex-Muslim human rights campaigner Maryam Namazie, which became a national story. It is still worth dwelling on. A woman who has fled from theocracy and campaigns for the rights of women everywhere, is shouted down by a clerical mob whose supporters think it ‘progressive’.

Vanishing in part thanks to a Conservative government that clearly does not value free speech and which has imposed the "Prevent" duty which forces universities and student unions to silence people with non-mainstream opinions.

Terrorism is not an idea any institution should tolerate, especially if it means creating another 'Jihadi John'.

But unfortunately 'prevent' is preventing things which are most certainly not terrorism.

I agree; my point was that the initial campaign was not necessarily aimed at stifling all freedom of speech.

Well, if myself and a score of other student activists could foresee the consequences of it as it was laid out, I dare say that the Government with the aid of the civil service should have been able to as well.

Perhaps but you and the "score of other student activists" don't necessarily have millions of people to please and this might have been the only solution to do that.

The fact that using "But teh Muslems are gonna blow us up!!1!" to curtail free speech may be politically popular, but doesn't make it any less lamentable.

You're just being unnecessarily presumptuous now. You have no evidence to back such a statement.

That it curtails free speech?

That it curtails free speech?

"But teh Muslems are gonna blow us up!!1!"

It is better than the NUS "no-platform" policy.

My comment was directed at the statement:

You want to argue that the Prevent Duty wasn't proposed as a response to perceived Islamic extremeism?

Are you saying that Islamic extremism at British universities is "perceived" rather than real?

If the answer is yes we have nothing more to discuss, your views are inconsequential..

If the answer is no, how do we address/confront it as a society?

Or don't we?

I think it's real, but grossly exaggerated - a lot of people branded extremeists do have pretty mainstream, non-violent views. And you confront it through arguing against it and of course monitoring if there's a reasonable suspicion of planned terrorist activity, not by banning their views and allowing them to use that as a recruitment tool.

Are there any views that Islamic extremists might express that you would ban?

Peter Tatchell, AC Grayling And Richard Dawkins Support Protest Against NUS No Platform Policies

Academics and campaigners including Peter Tatchell, AC Grayling and Richard Dawkins are supporting a protest outside the National Union of Students headquarters in London.

The protesters want a revision of the “safe space and no-platform policies, which restrict freedom of expression”.

The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) has organised the rally, due to take place on March 17.

“Educational institutions must be a place for the exchange and criticism of all ideas. Bigoted ideas are most effectively defeated by open debate,” the CEMB’s letter to the NUS reads.

“The student body is not homogenous. The NUS’s restrictive policies infringe upon the right of students to hear and challenge dissenting and opposing views,” it continues.

High profile names like Julie Bindel and Brendan O’Neill have joined Tatchell, Grayling and Dawkins in signing the letter, as part of a rising backlash against the student left's perceived attack on free speech.