With the heated nature of politics in Britain at the moment, it is perhaps unsurprising that the launch of a new university regulatory body is proving particularly controversial and divisive. The Office for Students, which will be tasked with the seemingly innocuous role of championing the “interests of students”, “promoting “choice” and helping “to ensure that students are receiving a good deal for their investment into higher education”, has become a politicised issue, reflecting wider divisions on the nature of freedom of speech and tolerance.
Months before the body was due to be established, it faced criticism over one of the responsibilities it was likely to be given: preventing universities or student groups from ‘no-platforming’ controversial speakers. In December, Higher Education Minister Jo Johnson confirmed that universities could face fines if they failed to ensure their student bodies promoted free speech. “Our universities… should be places that open minds, not close them, where ideas can be freely challenged and prejudices exposed… but in universities in America and increasingly in the United Kingdom, there are countervailing forces of censorship, where groups have sought to stifle those who do not agree with them in every way under the banner of ‘safe spaces’ or ‘no-platforming’,” he told a conference in December. The Minister was referring to opposition faced by speakers such as the feminist writer Germaine Greer and gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell over their views on transgender rights.
The move has been opposed by many academics fearful that it will simply offer a platform to those on the Right. They also think that fear of the fines could lead to a curtailment of freedom of speech itself, potentially pressuring student bodies into inviting controversial figures just in order to be perceived not to be ‘no-platforming’ students. Some have warned of the practical difficulties in implementing this policy given that many events were organised by student bodies rather than universities themselves. Others have argued that the government is overemphasising the nature of the problem: the National Union for Students has pointed out that the only organisations that had been ‘no-platformed’ were “dangerous groups”, including the far-right National Action, the British National Party and the English Defence League and fundamentalist groups such as the Al-Muhajiroun and the Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
Attack on liberal values
The focus by the government on what appears to be a handful of instances of right-wing speakers not being given a platform has led to warnings that it is feeding into the global backlash against liberal values. Mr. Johnson also used his speech to criticise universities’ use of trigger warnings — an increasing number of universities in the U.K. have been asking academics to warn students if upsetting material, such as on sexual assault, is likely to appear in forthcoming lectures or texts — as well as the removal of books perceived as offensive from university libraries and curricula.
Last week, the sense that the debate had taken a decidedly rightward shift was further stoked as Toby Young, a controversial right-wing journalist and commentator, was included on the regulator’s board, despite having limited experience in the sector and controversial views (he has leered at women’s bodies in tweets, and has in the past derided schools’ efforts to be inclusive by providing wheelchair ramps and addressing the needs of dyslexic children).
Vidya Ram works for The Hindu and is based in London
