Free speech: Sussex

Statement from Sussex University students, Luke Gittos, Adam Lyons, David Stoker, Nick Thorne, and Matt Worsdale, December 2007

'The Anti No Platform movement at Sussex University is a growing collective of students who believe in Free Speech and academic freedom on British Campuses. We reject No Platform in any guise, and campaign for the right is allowed to choose which ideas we listen too and which we don’t. Our current objectives are the repeal of all our Student Union’s No Platform Policies, and the establishment of an Anti No Platform policy in its place. So far we have some small successes on Campus, and are looking to a referendum on the issue, early next year.

The NUS is vehement in its support of No Platform. Since they heard about our campaign, they have littered our Campus with posters, calling for people to deny Fascists the space to speak. The NUS seem to believe (as do many students I have spoken too) that allowing the BNP to speak at our University would lead to an increase in racial violence, and somehow legitimise the fascist cause. It is unsettling that the government and the NUS have managed to convince so many young people that they are not ready to hear challenging ideas, and that they need to be protected from their own intellects.

Though we have invited the NUS to debate, so far we have had no replies. For the NUS, this has become an issue of pride, and they are clearly terrified that a growing proportion of students disagree with a fundamental element of their policy. On all occasions that commitment Freedom of Speech or academic freedom have been tested, the NUS has sided with censorship. They are firm believers in the dangers of open discussion, and look to a world in which Universities only showcase un offensive and sanitised ideas. They have failed to grasp that students want to be represented and not protected. They have taken on the responsibility of deciding what it is appropriate for students to hear, and what is not. They have become a meta- parent, turning off a violent film when it gets to the gory bit.

An uncaring and apathetic attitude towards free speech amongst students is allowing the NUS to behave this way. Free speech is seen as an insignificant abstract, which is simply not worth campaigning for. Sadly, the question we are asked most frequently is why we are bothering sticking up for the rights of fascists. Free speech has become a divisible commodity, which we can share out amongst our friends and anyone we agree with. This is the pleasant version of free speech, which means protest, and petitions are allowed, but we don’t have to listen to those we find offensive. We have forgotten that free speech has to be universal, unflinching and deeply unpleasant. Convincing ourselves that any other form is legitimate, holds dangerous consequences for free thinkers everywhere.'