The Guardian has reported this morning that:
The government is to introduce legislation that will enable academics, students or visiting speakers who are no-platformed to sue universities for compensation where they feel they have suffered because of free speech infringements.
The proposal is one of a range of legal measures put forward by the education secretary, Gavin Williamson, as part of the government's manifesto commitment to protect free speech and academic freedom in universities in England.
Let's be clear that there is already free speech in UK universities.
Then let's note that there are already statutorily imposed limits on the right to free speech that this freedom within universities must comply with. It is illegal to incite racial hatred, for example. Inciting violence is also not permitted.
And let's also be clear that there are some opinions that might legally be held which are profoundly offensive, and that there is a right to object to them.
There are also serious and reasonable codes of conduct that make it very difficult for staff who hold some views to work in universities, and which most certainly prevent them expressing their opinions. For example, a member of staff expressing the view that women students do not perform as well as male ones cannot say so without it being apparent that they have unacceptable prejudice against women students that is likely to impact on their appraisal of their work if they have opportunity to identify it (most university marking is now of anonymised texts for precisely this reason now). Such views are not acceptable if said or otherwise evidenced in a university as a result.
All of which I note to record that there cannot be free speech without limit on any university campus without breaching legal, ethical, teaching and personal rights, and without in some cases being in breach of contract.
Which does not mean that I am saying issues should not be discussed in universities. I am clearing saying how any matter can and should be discussed is not always a matter where free rein might always be had, and for very good reason. Constraints exist because they are required to prevent abuse of many sorts.
So what is the issue that Gavin Williamson is addressing? It is really not clear, is the honest answer, so we must get clues from elsewhere.
Priti Patel thinks ‘Black Lives Matter' dreadful.
Robert Jenrick is to tell heritage organisations that they must not refer to any history implying that exploitation might have played a part in the accumulation of wealth when presenting historical artefacts in the future.
And ‘woke' is a term of abuse for government ministers, which if it refers to an awareness of social and racial injustice, as I think is all it implies, is decidedly odd since the consequence is that very obviously they would not wish for that awareness, which would seem to be the only reasonable conclusion to draw from their actions.
Put that conclusion into Williamson's proposals and what do you get? It is that what he is proposing is the right to deny that social and racial injustice exists. Unsurprisingly that is going to provoke a response. Anyone proposing such ideas anywhere will provoke a response. In a university it is likely to be much more marked.
But the whole aim is to provoke of course.
First they came for migrants.
Then they came for Europeans.
They've never really been that keen in women or anyone in the LGBTQ community.
And now they want to pick on those who might promote what they consider to be left wing thought, making them the enemy that will explain to the Daily Mail reader why the failed model of capitalism that they have been persuaded to support is not delivering the promised land they expected and were promised. That is all the fault of those lefties in universities who want to address social and racial injustice whilst seeking to prevent other abuses to personal freedom on the way. They are the oppressor of the Daily Mail reader.
This is, of course, straight out of the fascist playbook. Create an issue where there is none. Promote a victim, in this case the racist or misogynist who cannot express their views freely whilst working in a university, and then find someone to blame - in this case those who think racism and misogyny unacceptable - and the reason for imposing financial penalties on the left that might provide a very useful source of funding for right wing promoters of oppression might have been found.
And in the meantime, those who tackle racial and social injustice will have been silenced. It is not by chance that causes like tax justice have been driven out of major NGOs already by threats under charity law when only a decade ago these organisations were at the forefront of campaigning on such issues in the UK, and often still are in other countries.
I believe in free speech. But I do do not believe in its abuse. Gavin Williamson is promoting the abuse of free speech. And that is exceptionally dangerous.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Gavin’s opinion best labelled as the Donald J. Hitler school of thinking!
“Freedom without limits is just a word.”
– Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay
Prompted by your “first they came for…”, here is my contribution, which may need some more work.
If you think it too frivolous, don’t use it. – David L
A new version (with apologies) of Pastor Martin Niemoller’s poem
FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE …( or the lament of the apathetic)
First they came for council houses, I was not worried because I own a house
Then they came for the railways. I was not concerned because I own a car
When they came for disabled benefits, I was not concerned because I am not disabled
When they closed public lavatories, I was unconcerned because I do not have a prostate problem
When they came for student grants, I was uninterested because I am not a student
When they started closing libraries, I was not concerned because I could afford to buy book
When they came for trade unions I didn’t care, because it was them that had caused problems by fighting for workers to have decent wages and conditions
When they started letting the rich get their assets off shore to save tax, I was not worried because no one likes tax
When I learnt that most of our newspaper are owned by foreign nationals, living offshore, to avoid tax, I decided not to worry because there is nothing I can do about it.
When I heard that the government is giving lucrative contracts to their friends in the city to assure them of directorships when they leave politics, I decided not to be concerned because it has always been this way.
When they gave jobs to their cronies, and lucrative contracts to their friends for NHS procurement, I realised this is how they work, and I can do nothing about it.
When they started coming for pensions saying they could not be afforded, I began to feel a little uneasy
Then they started privatising the NHS, I was unconcerned because that nice Mr Cameron had said that the NHS is safe in his hands
When that charming Mr Farrage said that we should go for immigrants and refugees, I was not concerned because I am not a refugee
When they killed old people by moving Covid sufferers into care homes, I was uninterested because I don’t live in a care home
When I heard that there could be many redundancies because many of our small and medium sized companies are struggling because of Brexit, I was not worried because Mr Johnson had an oven ready deal, and says we are all going to be prosperous.
But if they come for my bus pass, I will be really upset.
Apologies to Pastor Martin Niemoller (1892-1984
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out…
So you have finally find the pivot point that will incite riots…
Just to clarify, I refer to how the prevailing idea that freedom of speech allows people (predominantly right wing) to say what they want, when they want, and without repurcussion — even to the extent of forcing their views on others, is wrong.
Freedom of speech naturally comes with limits, as Richard rightly points out in this article. One of those limits is that people should be free to ignore your speech, or indeed protest your speech.
You know, what is going on here is so obvious.
At the moment, my view is that since 2008 the Neo-liberal/Right wing game plan is just to forget about being subtle and they are all just going for the jugular. They’re staking their claim right now. They broke their own system, and now just as unapologetically and because of the extremists they are, they are going to dig themselves in like tics.
Well OK – if that’s the way they want it. And we’ll see.
The elephant in the room here is men’s rights (masquerading as trans rights) activism, which is not only no-platforming feminists, it is physically intimidating them, and, in certain disciplines, ensuring that they don’t get published.
Williamson’s proposed war on ‘woke’ will of course focus on promoting the acceptability of injustice, and will do nothing to protect women’s freedom of speech.
But we cannot pretend that the woke label, as well as huge sections of academe, have not been captured by a campaign that denies our reality as a sexually dimorphic species, and silences any who question gender ideology.
I am aware of this issue, of course.
I think there is a debate to be had.
But not here.
That does not mean I am limiting free speech. I am simply saying this platform cannot be everything.
“They’ve never really been that keen in women”
Margaret Thatcher (PM), Theresa May (Home secretary and PM), Amber Rudd (Home Secretary), Priti Patel (Home Secretary).
Perhaps you could draw up an equivalent list for other UK political parties?
“or anyone in the LGBTQ community.”
Current openly gay Conservative MPs – Daniel Kawcynski, David Mundell, Stuart Andrew, Conor Burns, Mike Freer, Mark Menzies, Christopher Pincher, Iain Stewart, William Wragg, Damien Moore, Lee Rowley, Chris Clarkson, Elliot Colburn, Mark Fletcher, Peter Gibson, Anthony Higginbotham, Paul Holmes, Kieran Mullan, Rob Roberts, Gary Sambrook, Jacob Young.
And still hostile, despite that
Plenty of women in senior positions in Labour. And, particularly in the case of Diane Abbott, being on the receiving end of colossal amounts of vile racist and misogynist abuse cowardly right wing keyboard warriors. Come to think of it, quite a few women and LGBTQ people in other parties too.
So your point is ridiculous. The real point here is, given the clear attempts by this Tory administration to suppress those fighting social injustice, by adopting, as Richard points out, tactics straight from the fascist playbook, why are these women and LGBTQ people still in the Tory party?
And of course, the answer is the fact of being a woman or an LGBTQ person doesn’t mean you will care about social injustice, does it? After all, Ernst Rohm was a homosexual and member of the Nazi part; until Hitler had him killed in 1934.
The problem with Williamson appealing to those with conspiracy theories around “no-platforming” is that it seems a complete nonsense to anyone familiar with real universities (unless they read the Daily Mail).
External speakers need to be invited to give a lecture at a university, and it is very rare that an invitation is issued but then withdrawn. I have read of one or two instances when it has happened, but on the advice of the police.
I suspect that in many cases journalists have set up a “story” by getting a couple of students to claim they are a university society and invite someone controversial – a Holocaust denier say – and then deliberately inform the Jewish Students’ Society, wait for the inevitable complaints, and blame them on the Vice Chancellor.
So what is the issue that Gavin Williamson is addressing?
The Day-by-Day Brexit disaster. Toryscum are desparate to divert attention from the slo-mo nationwide, day-by-day pile up. First is was the ghastly Patel with her nonesense, then the toryscum wheel on Gavin-the-moron-Williamson for his “look – a squirrel” act.
Anything, absolutely anything to divert attention. Leaving the only question to answer: what will the toryscum come up with tomorrow, let me guess, “the sexual abuse of letter boxes” or “people that are unkind to kerb stones” or ….. send you answer in on a postcard to toryscum central office, all ideas gratefully recieved by a desparate bunch of political desperadoes.
Oh well nice to see Rupert Murdoch has decided to start pulling the right apart in favour of Donald J. Hitler! Won’t be long before before he starts on the Tory Party over here! Not sure who he’ll be promoting but Johnson is clearly too “wet” promoting such things as vaccinations and the NHS!
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sean-hannity-warns-mitch-mcconnell_n_602b7c9ac5b6f88289fe09cf
It may be of interest that something very similar is happening in France with the accusation of “islamogauchisme”. In the context of the Loi sur les principes Républicans, both the Education Minsiter, Blanquer, and his sidekick for higher education & research, Vidal have seized on this formula, meaningless as they use it, to hunt out academic researchers who study the wrong things (oh, you know, France’s colonial past, racial oppression – as France refuses to classify the social construction race, this is an obvious target – or “intersectionality”). It makes a fine distraction from worrying about starving sudents with no teaching &c.
It started unsurprisingly with Micron trying to resurrect his campaign for re-election, tho’ he has now seen how this particular witch-hunt might be a problem.
More info at
https://blogs.mediapart.fr/andre-gunthert/blog/180221/islamogauchisme-un-epouvantail-en-retard-d-une-crise?utm_source=20210218&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=QUOTIDIENNE&utm_content=&utm_term=&xtor=EREC-83-%5BQUOTIDIENNE%5D-20210218&M_BT=442108844244
analysis of the term “islamo-gauchisme” at https://inrer.org/2020/10/islamo-gauchisme-islamo-droitisme/