No Platform For Free Speech?

It was a surprise to find out that this term, one of the referendum motions proposed to the student body argues for a ‘No Platform’ policy to “hate speakers”. In fact, such wording might imply that the whole enclosed liberal environment on campus was all a façade and that the University of York is a ‘hotbed’ for extremism. Yes, I laughed a little too.

Of course, the proposal is not without precedent; in the past few years, much controversy has been sparked over such speakers in York, one of the most recent being Yusuf Chambers. In other universities, similar controversies erupted over engagement with BNP leader Nick Griffin, and the Respect Party leader, George Galloway MP. At the same time, attempts to ban such speakers have also brought with it debates on the nature of ‘freedom of speech’, and the boundaries in which they should operate on university campuses.

The official NUS policy is rooted in the principle that “fascism stands for the annihilation of whole groups of people, the elimination of democracy and all freedoms.” Giving people who hold such reprehensible views a platform in which to air them runs the risk of breaking down social cohesion across campuses, rendering minority groups vulnerable to both physical and verbal abuse. In practice, this means that the NUS and individual unions rightly restrict speakers they see as legitimate threats to peace within universities, or pose a direct threat to particular groups of students.

The problem with this motion instead lies in practicality. As Josh Boswell previously argued in relation to the Yusuf Chambers event last year “If we prevent ourselves access to any opinion other than the norm, we prevent ourselves access to any personal development beyond the norm”.   

This proposal advocates maintaining the norm at any cost. If passed, no society will be allowed to invite individuals who for example, “reject the principle of popular sovereignty as the sole basis of legislation, and/or the right to free speech”. Though ruling out ‘Islamists’, it also prohibits a number of religious speakers , political activists and academics. Beyond limiting the actual breadth and exposure of free speech itself, the proposal associates anyone who fails to subscribe to the status quo as a ‘hate speaker’, regardless of whether they’ve actually advocated any hate or violence. These arbitrary limits will only reduce the level of intellectual debate on campus, and in so doing tarnish this aspect of the university experience.

More important, is whether universities should provide a public platform. And while might argue that this privilege that should not be undermined’, alternative communication- whether in broadcasting online content or relocating controversial events to private venues, ultimately renders this policy  as little more than a lame duck publicity act. Though the symbolism might be welcome, we should really ask whether it’s more preferable for ‘hate speakers’ to air their views in spaces of minimal accountability, or in public universities where so long as there is an agreement that all members of the student union can attend, speakers have no choice but to be questioned- both by their supporters and opponents. In practical terms, it is clear that the latter is far more desirable.

Finally, the policy is patronizing to students themselves. You would imagine that by the age of eighteen, we would have the mental faculties and intelligence to make our own decisions and justify our opinions. Yet by attempting to ban controversial speakers, the policy subsequently assumes that students need to be sheltered from socially questionable views. Not only is this insulting, this direct form of silencing poses its own threat to social cohesion. Those with distasteful views are more likely to be strengthened and more vocal, particularly if they can portray themselves as martyrs.

Like it or not, we have to accept that in universities, a wide variety of opinions exist in direct opposition to our cherished liberal values. Though these views may be reprehensible, they also form a vital part of our democracy, and unless a direct threat is truly evident, there seems no justification for overt censorship. Instead, we should use universities to actively challenge these speakers, in an area of open, democratic and most importantly, accountable debate. After all, while  'No Platform' policies may have been effective in combating fascism and extremism in the past, these days it's far more effective to broadcast a humiliating video on Youtube.