Free speech: Oxford

Article by Lee Jones and Maria Grasso, reproduced from the Oxford Cherwell, 23 November 2007

Free speech is this term’s hot topic, thanks to the Oxford Union’s invitation to Nick Griffin and David Irving to speak in eighth week. OUSU, the Jewish Society and others have pledged to stop them speaking and the controversy has put OUSU’s “no platform” policy into question, with a referendum being planned for Trinity term. OUSU’s censoriousness is, however, far from unique. Over the last few years, student unions around Britain have banned or censored such things as the Daily Mail, Eminem, the Bible, the word “gay”, Coca Cola and Ken Livingstone. What’s happening on our campuses? Why is closing down debate and banning products seen as way to be progressive today?

Student politics has always been parasitic upon broader conflicts in society: the high-point of student radicalism, 1968, was a time of open class struggle and social conflict. The collapse of such conflicts produced the sort of empty “consensus politics” that now dominates Westminster. Likewise, student unions once existed to mobilise students and promote their interests, but, just as the state, in an age of mass disengagement from politics, tries to re-legitimise itself through efficiently providing “services” and “choice”, so to student unions, facing unprecedented student apathy, have fallen back on delivering efficient services – like funding for societies and “welfare” provision.

Just as the state’s campaigns to encourage exercise, healthier eating, and ban smoking show at the national level, the displacement of politics by welfarism opens the door to excessive nannying. Take OUSU President Martin McCluskey’s argument for preventing Griffin and Irving from speaking at the Union: they supposedly “pose a threat to the welfare of individual students” who “do not want to be harrassed or intimidated by these men or any of their followers”. This is in line with the NUS’s overall “no platform” limitation on free speech. NUS President Gemma Tumelty argues that “all students… must be able to study and socialise in a safe, inclusive and welcoming environment free from incitement to violence and prejudice, hatred and fear”.

These claims are, of course, exaggerated: the simple act of inviting David Irving and Nick Griffin poses absolutely no risk to the physical safety of students, and it is hard to see how students will be personally “harassed or intimidated” by Union speakers. Rather than face down BNP storm-troopers, attendees at the eighth-week debate are more likely to encounter a baying crowd of OUSU demonstrators. No, the argument is that student unions have a “duty of care” to shield students from uncomfortable, repugnant, or difficult ideas. McClusky and his OUSU colleagues aren’t wicked Stalinists trying to silence dissent in order to pursue their own agendas: this is their agenda – to make university a warm, fluffy, comfortable space where no one is exposed to difficult points of view, where taboos are never confronted, where difficult arguments are never had out, and no one ever, ever gets offended.

Hence the ban on the satirical “Oxford University Society Union” slogan at Freshers’ Fayre referencing “cock-guzzling corporate whores”: OUSU argued these “offensive words” provided “a platform to advocates of the incitement or perpetration of violence against ethnic, religious, culture or sexual groups”. The Pro-Life society was similarly banned from using the words “unborn child” for fear that it would be “upsetting”. A senior OUSU figure explained that “students don’t expect to encounter distressing material at Freshers’ Fayre” and the Union’s “duty of care” meant it had to step in to shield the vulnerable first-years.

This can clearly serve political ends, and doubtless wins student officials kudos from many potential future employers in the wider political class, who also see freedom of speech as something that can easily be sacrificed in the name of a supposed freedom not to be upset or offended in our “inclusive” society. But the “duty of care” has wide-ranging, pernicious effects on university life. For starters, the moral imperative of the “duty of care” gives student officials a blank cheque to bypass the democratic process or the opinions of the majority of students. The “duty of care” is potentially infinite: most things can potentially offend someone, so it is enough for tiny numbers of students to cry “offence!” for bans and censures to be deployed.

For instance, some Edinbugh students complained that Gideon Bibles were “offensive”, leading to their removal from student halls to make “all faiths feel at home” and to “respect diversity”. Sheffield Student Union banned Eminem’s music in response to just three complaints from its 22,000-strong student body. Merton’s JCR banned the word ‘gay’ on the basis of just one complaint. Rugger buggers were banned from the St Peter’s bar because one fresher complained of a “sickened feeling” in response to one of their songs. The senior OUSU official explained her action against the Pro-Life society on the grounds of just one complaint made last year, showing that pre-emptive action can be taken even on the behalf of people who just might be offended.

The idea that students need to be protected by all means possible from anything that might upset them or challenge their existing views infantilises students, rather than allowing us to learn, grow up, experiment, test out our arguments and discover how to stand up for ourselves and our beliefs, which is ultimately what university should be all about. It implies students cannot think for themselves, or defend their own beliefs. Are Oxford students really so feeble-minded that they can’t muster arguments against a few racists, bigots and xenophobes? Are we so fragile that we will crumble into dust if someone says “unborn child” or calls us “gay”? Are we really such witless sponges that we will unthinkingly soak up whatever we are told, or potential fist-swingers who, given any racist cue from a Griffin or an Irving will go on to harass others and preach their bigoted gospel to the world?

If any of us are incapable of making coherent arguments against racism or Holocaust denial, isn’t it because there is a consensus that they are simply “wrong”, which people dogmatically accept without question? Silencing those who disagree is one way of enforcing that consensus. But if the arguments are then never rehearsed, strengthened or even simply heard, debates are merely avoided, not won, and anti-racism becomes what J.S. Mill called “dead dogma”, rather than a “living truth” whose validity is clearly demonstrated through reasoned discussion. Arguably this is a better breeding ground for bigotry than an environment where everyone understands the reasons why racism is flawed and the evidence that proves the Holocaust took place.

The Presidents of the Jewish Society argue “it will be a disgrace if these discredited speakers are allowed a platform on a forum on free speech – they have an embarrassing history of disregard for the legal restrictions on it.” The danger of this is clear enough: the authorities have decided what is the truth is and created laws to regulate it; those who don’t accept that decision should not even be permitted to speak. There is no surer road to “dead dogma” than this.

Nick Griffin and David Irving have utterly repellent views, and doubtless inviting them to debate is not the most mature or sensible way to explore the issue of free speech. Moreover, the Union’s bowing to pressure over Norman Finkelstein’s planned appearance suggests that it was more interested in grabbing headlines than defending free speech. But there can be no basis for short-circuiting the open debate we need to test our ideas and validate our truths. Inviting speakers does not automatically “legitimise” their views: if it gives them a “platform” to speak, it gives us a platform to argue back, and defeat them in a public forum, potentially winning over many others to a truly progressive point of view. Rather than being denied the so-called “oxygen of publicity”, they should be drowned in their own bile.

Instead of treating giving offence as the worst possible sin and curtailing free speech to protect us from ourselves, we should be fighting for a world, and a university environment, where everyone is free to argue, think, and say what they please. A climate where people confidently express their thoughts and argue about them is the only one where we can tackle the difficult, controversial questions of our day, and decide how to move forward as a society.