Your say / Free Speech
‘It is the responsibility of universities to uphold values that they aspire to’
“In this country, in 15 or 20 years’ time, the Black man will have the whip hand over the white man,” said Enoch Powell in Birmingham in 1968.
This was, of course, a complete fallacy, feeding a “white replacement theory” that is attractive to the alt-right (a right-wing, primarily online political movement). It is the same fear mongering that Trump used to rally his supporters and create racial tension in the USA.
Similar conspiracy theories have pushed the idea that there is a powerful lobby or agenda that needs to be resisted, such as the “Israel lobby”, the “trans lobby” and the ‘’gay agenda”.
is needed now More than ever
Free speech is often used to create division and seed hate. The audience for Enoch Powell on that day was small in number. But through the strength of his rhetoric and the power of the media, his message was shared widely.
Today the means of delivering a message extends beyond the soapbox, loudhailer and the friendly right-wing press; social media allows an instantaneous reach to millions.
Trump’s twitter was avidly followed by the “make America great again” crowd, who would unfailingly respond with the modern equivalence of applause: the like, reply and retweet.
Donald Trump’s accounts have now been suspended on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and more. Image: Twitter
What has not changed through the course of history is that unsavoury views held by controversial people are shared by those who seem to lose all sense of reasoning, those who succumb to the echo chamber they feed from and become blasé to any opinion other than their own.
No platforming (a form of student boycott where a person or organisation is denied a platform to speak) has been used for many decades in our academic institutions.
The informative study by Evan Smith, No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and the Limits of Free Speech, details how since it was first adopted by student organisations in the 1970s, the principle of no platform has evolved from anti-fascism and anti-racism to be used against sexists, homophobes and anti-abortionists.
Despite this, the Government proposes to introduce tougher measures to bolster free speech at universities, as announced by Gavin Williamson on Tuesday, February 16.
In recent years, transgender people – and particularly trans women like me – have heard about a growing number of anti-trans speakers seeking a platform at universities.
From Selina Todd at the University of Oxford to Heather Brunskell-Evans, who disgracefully spoke at the University of Bristol on Trans Day of Remembrance in 2018, we hear cries of “we are being silenced” and “we have a right to free speech” as their platform is refused.
Such is their angst about this that one notoriously “gender critical” academic keeps a list of those no-platformed.
Yes, free speech is a fundamental right in a civilised, democratic society. But surely academic institutions have a responsibility to make people feel safe and ensure they are not subject to abuse, or even worse?
Kaz Self was the organiser of the July 2020 Trans Rights Protest on College Green, which stood against hatred and bigotry. Photo: Nicky Ebbage
It is the responsibility of universities to uphold values that they aspire to and to ensure our academic institutions are not the seed bed for discrimination.
By legalising against no platforming at our universities we are essentially saying that it is ok to offend others without recrimination. That potentially takes us to a very sinister place.
One where the modern equivalent of Enoch Powell could give a “Rivers of Blood”-type speech on a university campus without fear or consequence. Where students would be victimised for calling out racism or other hateful rhetoric.
It can never be acceptable to let our academic institutions become “no-go” areas for those who belong to minority groups, just to allow those with extremist views a platform.
The right of students to protest about, and call out, unsavoury characters with exclusionary viewpoints has been a fundamental part of academic life for decades. It must continue.
The finishing words of Powell’s speech were “all I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal”. But to speak with a purpose of creating hate, fear and division, is that what we should allow?
In reference to Powell, the Bristol Labour politician Tony Benn said in 1970: “The flag of racialism which has been hoisted in Wolverhampton is beginning to look like the one that fluttered 25 years ago over Dachau and Belsen.
“If we do not speak up now against the filthy and obscene racialist propaganda… the forces of hatred will mark up their first success and mobilise their first offensive.”
Former Bristol MP Tony Benn (right) spoke against racism. Photo supplied by Kevin Ramage
Our academic institutions should not be legally obliged to yield to those who complain they have been un-platformed. Neither should students face sanctions for protesting against the action of others.
Otherwise, racism, bullying homophobia, transphobia and all forms of hate will simply flourish unchallenged – and this applies not just on campus but everywhere else.
Kaz Self is a trans woman based in Bristol and the organiser of the July 2020 Trans Rights Protest on College Green
Main photo: Nicky Ebbage
Our top newsletters emailed directly to you
