Report by Luke Gittos, Sussex University

On the 1st and 2nd of May, students at the University of Sussex voted on the motion: “This Union should allow anyone to speak at the University Of Sussex within the constraints of UK law.” The motion was defeated by 731 votes to 453, yet the debate that erupted on campus bought out some home truths about student attitudes to Free Speech, and student activism as a whole.

The University of Sussex was once thought of as a hotbed for student radicalism. It is a reputation that the current student Union strives to uphold, and Annual General Meetings always deliver a new global moral issue about which the students are asked to give an opinion on. From Environmentalism to Islamophobia, all the worlds’ turbulences are put before a minority of student voters, who decide the political opinion of the Union as a whole. One particular decision, made during the 1980’s at one such AGM, banned the provision of any space or funding to any group which the Union deemed to be ‘racist, fascist or homophobic’ with the aim of upholding ‘the ethos of a diverse student community’. The ‘No Platform’ policy remained in the background of Student Union Policy until very recently when a group of students attempted to have it overturned.

The campaign that formed against us gave a highly conformist perspective on Free Speech through the arguments of the old school radicals. We were accused of all sorts; from political idealism and naivety to racism and shameless self-promotion. Yet perhaps more depressing than all of these, was the sight of students convincing themselves that this debate was ‘not about Free Speech, but the idea of allowing the BNP onto campus.’

We had already put a motion towards the 2007 AGM which had looked to overturn No Platform, and this had been defeated by the narrowest of margins. It was clear that the issue was important to a large number of students at the meeting, so the process began for taking it to a referendum This followed successful votes (amongst others) at the University of East Anglia, who did away with their policy following an admirable majority of students voting against it. We all felt from the start that this would be a tough act to follow -especially at Sussex - but although the result of the vote was somewhat predictable, the arguments bought out by those in favour of No Platform were startling.

In the lead up to the vote, the ‘No’ campaign (which sought to uphold the No Platform policy) began by establishing how disastrous it would be if were to allow anyone to speak at Sussex within the law. They told Students that this would open the door to fascist organisations seeking to establish a foothold at British universities; this in turn would lead to an increase in racial violence on campus and leave the ethnic minorities living on campus too scared to leave their front room. They claimed that the Union was a private club, and just like any other should be allowed to choose who they allow to address their members. Allowing organisations like the BNP to address members of our Union would confer legitimacy upon their ideas, and leave students open to influence from the wrong kind of people.

Their arguments were disturbing on two counts. Firstly, they take students to be
ideologically immature, and blindly absorbent of any political belief system that drifts their way. The argument is usually enforced by the creation of a hypothetical student, who is so full of extremist rage that it would only take the invite of a racist like Nick Griffin to speak at this University to send him into a violent campaign of hate against all ethnic minorities. Though this student remained elusive throughout the campaign, he was quite a talking point.

Secondly, the idea that the Union is a private members club stems from a thematic worry of having ‘the wrong kind of people’ on campus. Much of Sussex’s Union policy has been influenced by these generic wrong doers, and their supposed attempts to disrupt campus life. The first was the violent and poverty ridden football fan, who reared his ugly head when plans to build a new stadium for Brighton and Hove Albion Football club were approved for a site opposite the University. The Union ran a campaign against the plans, complaining that ‘our bars would be full of football fans seeking cheap drinks’ and campus security would be ‘unequipped to control the crowds’. These arguments appeared for weeks in our Student newspaper, along with half-baked arguments about the environmental impact of the plans (half baked because the stadium would have less of an environmental impact that the University buildings we all took classes in). It did not take long for a similar worry to emerge
during discussions on No Platform. This time, the ‘No’ campaign looked to Moulsecoombe (a small, predominantly working class area which surrounds our campus) and claimed that an invite to a fascist organisation would lead to an influx of local fascists ‘from the surrounding area’. One couldn’t help but think that the football fan they were thinking of may look a lot like these local fascists: fat, white and intent on destruction.

Running at the heart of all of these fears was the idea that having the BNP on our campus would be fundamentally destructive. The fact that Nick Griffin and co have managed to find themselves centre stage in the Free Speech debate is perhaps the most depressing fact of all, and does more to ‘confer legitimacy’ than any university invitation ever could. Yet the NUS and Sussex University Student Union still insist that their ideas are too dangerous for us to hear, and still propagate fears about a party who struggle to gain council seats. It is a shame that at Sussex, we have chosen to compromise our respect for civil liberties in the face of such a trivial confrontation.

Yet for all the doom and gloom, and despite the Union’s decision to retain the policy, it was encouraging to see so many students actively engaged in the debate about Free Speech. The vote had the biggest turn out for a referendum in Sussex’s history, and for two days the library concourse became a lively forum for debate. The result of the vote at least represents a starting point for the University of Sussex to join those Universities who have rejected this outdated and protectionist policy. 453 down, 731 to go.