Investigation: Freedom of speech
5th Mar 2010
Rosa McMahon & Micaela Winter investigate what can and cannot be discussed on university grounds
Which voices can be heard on campus? Photo: Lucy Percival
‘I do not agree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it’.
Increasingly university campuses are faced with decisions regarding questionably controversial speakers. We are no longer simply concerned with what is said, but also who says it, and the forums in which voices are heard. Such issues have certainly encouraged us to define freedom of speech, and question if it is unconditional within our academic space.
Do I have the right to speak?
The University of Cambridge has recently been criticised over a society’s decision to cancel a speaker, following protests and a fear that Varsity Newspaper reported that it ‘led to incitements of racial tension’. Similarly, on our campus, disapproval has come from decisions to allow, most recently, Palestinian academic Dr Azzam Tamimi to speak, despite approximately 1,200 signatories against his proposed talk. The University should be the very place for debating issues of importance to students. Indeed, for students to make informed decisions, a range of voices need to be heard. However this leads us to question where the limit of freedom of speech is deciphered, and if such definitions lead to campuses becoming a platform for articulating intolerance, and extreme political views. We now must redefine what we deem to be tolerant, and question individual liberties in a pluralistic, liberal society.
Ben Curtis and Alex Green, founders of the Facebook group ‘Keep Birmingham University Hate Free’, and opposers to Dr Tamimi speaking on campus, believe ‘fundamentally in the principle of free speech’, but say there is ‘a limit, and a line you should not cross’. However, it is a difficult task locating where that line is and this is where complications arise concerning university policy.
Some believe debate and censorship are not a healthy partnership in the realms of academia. A member of the Islamic Society, who wished to remain anonymous, stated: ‘I really feel that, especially in an educational setting such as a university, we need to leave people the freedom to debate and discuss and organise, even if we fundamentally don’t agree with what they think. The only way which we can come to different views is by hearing those of others’.
Whose Law?
University life can be like living in a bubble, a parallel world to wider society, a micro society if you will. Whereas in the wider world we have various interest groups, on campus we have societies. These expressions of differing interests make our University diverse and stimulating. The University added that they ‘host many visitors and events every year’ and that they themselves are ‘a community of 150 nations’. On campus do we remain part of the wider law of the land or, within the student body, are we able to make and define our own set of democratic policies?
Some university members we spoke to felt that the law was applicable to all institutions and therefore, freedom of speech should exist on campus, just as it does elsewhere. When speaking to Fabian Neuner, President of the Guild, he stressed that there is a fundamental difference between the University as an institution and the Guild. Drawing from this distinction he stated: ‘The Guild is a membership organisation and so technically a private members’ club. Who we invite to speak in our Guild is up to us, therefore I think freedom of speech is never absolute. To clarify, as far as I can recall the Guild has never prevented a speaker from talking on campus’.
The aftermath of Dr Tamimi’s speech brought about the question of who can, and should, come to speak on campus. A pluralistic society theoretically means a diversity of interests are represented, allowing individuals to articulate varying opinions. This is in essence a core principle of democracy. David Dunphy, a Maths and Music student who signed the ‘Keep Birmingham University Hate Free’ petition added, ‘in any form of a democracy you need to be allowed to state your opinion on any matter’. Following hearing Tamimi speak, he expressed his regret at joining the group and found he had underestimated his own value on freedom of speech for all on campus.
A Debate?
At the centre of university education is the ability to express, develop and question opinions. The presence of a platform for speakers leads to open debate, which is undoubtedly a core tenet of an educational setting. However, the situation concerning speakers at the University is not a simple one. Some students interviewed associated a platform with an accumulation of tension, and deemed certain speakers as a threat to the University, and the equilibrium within it. The term ‘preach hatred’ has increasingly been linked with those speaking at universities, and some see the platform as a means by which friction is accumulating. Green and Curtis voiced a fear concerning the University’s decision to allow certain speakers on campus. When questioned directly on his petition against Tamimi speaking, Green stated: ‘it wasn’t what he said in the talk that worried us, it was that he was given a platform.’ The Islamic Society felt their decision for Tamimi to speak was the right one as ‘it was an important element of the vital dialogue that needs to take place, in relation to the peace process’.
This leads to the question of whether the University has the right to prohibit certain viewpoints on campus. In turn, one must then question whether eliminating the platform means that arguments are strengthened, rather than silenced. If an opinion is not given a voice, then how can it ever be defeated? If a speaker can be questioned on their beliefs, then many of the fears about them might be allayed. Perhaps the issue can be summed up by Neuner, who stated that: ‘if you hold a debate under the banner of a university and education, you can’t have polemics’.
Code of Conduct
When assessing the issues regarding speakers on campus, the University’s Code of Conduct comes into question. The current policy has been criticised for being too vague in its wording, yet too complicated in its practice. It states that ‘the challenge for universities is to identify when the pursuit of freedom of ideas and expression crosses a threshold and becomes extremism or intolerance’, yet is not clear in how to implement this. Furthermore, procedure for securing a speaker at the Guild has been faulted for being too lengthy and complex. A member of the Islamic Society commented that current procedure ‘gives student groups very little time and space to organise an event’. The President of the Guild seemed to agree with criticism of the policy not being clear, and spoke of a review that has now been initiated. He raised the opinion that speakers need to be considered on a ‘case by case’ basis and that clearer guidelines need to be enforced for students to raise any possible issues. A spokesperson for the University commented that ’ the code of practice is reviewed regularly, and representatives on the current review reflect the broader University community, including the President of the Guild of Students’.
In turn, the need for more advertising both to attract wider audiences and raise awareness of speakers was highlighted. This gives the hope that both opposers and supporters may have the appropriate resources to prepare sound arguments and make informed decisions.
Universities are places where a variety of opinions should and do exist, but precautions are necessary to ensure they do not simply become a forum in which one-sided arguments prevail. A final point from a University’s spokesperson states that ‘we respect the right of all individuals to exercise freedom of speech within the law’. They add that ‘under the 1986 Education Act we have a legal duty to promote freedom of speech’, and as an institution ‘will continue to actively challenge discrimination of any kind and strive to strike a balance that protects these freedoms and ensures vigilance against any forms of potential extremism.’
‘University’, from its Latin derivation ‘universitas’, means the whole. Therefore, we must strive to ensure that the ‘whole’ of our voice can be heard. After all, ‘the test of democracy is the freedom of criticism’.
Investigation: Freedom of speech
5th Mar 2010
Rosa McMahon & Micaela Winter investigate what can and cannot be discussed on university grounds
Which voices can be heard on campus? Photo: Lucy Percival
Increasingly university campuses are faced with decisions regarding questionably controversial speakers. We are no longer simply concerned with what is said, but also who says it, and the forums in which voices are heard. Such issues have certainly encouraged us to define freedom of speech, and question if it is unconditional within our academic space.
Do I have the right to speak?
The University of Cambridge has recently been criticised over a society’s decision to cancel a speaker, following protests and a fear that Varsity Newspaper reported that it ‘led to incitements of racial tension’. Similarly, on our campus, disapproval has come from decisions to allow, most recently, Palestinian academic Dr Azzam Tamimi to speak, despite approximately 1,200 signatories against his proposed talk. The University should be the very place for debating issues of importance to students. Indeed, for students to make informed decisions, a range of voices need to be heard. However this leads us to question where the limit of freedom of speech is deciphered, and if such definitions lead to campuses becoming a platform for articulating intolerance, and extreme political views. We now must redefine what we deem to be tolerant, and question individual liberties in a pluralistic, liberal society.
Ben Curtis and Alex Green, founders of the Facebook group ‘Keep Birmingham University Hate Free’, and opposers to Dr Tamimi speaking on campus, believe ‘fundamentally in the principle of free speech’, but say there is ‘a limit, and a line you should not cross’. However, it is a difficult task locating where that line is and this is where complications arise concerning university policy.
Some believe debate and censorship are not a healthy partnership in the realms of academia. A member of the Islamic Society, who wished to remain anonymous, stated: ‘I really feel that, especially in an educational setting such as a university, we need to leave people the freedom to debate and discuss and organise, even if we fundamentally don’t agree with what they think. The only way which we can come to different views is by hearing those of others’.
Whose Law?
University life can be like living in a bubble, a parallel world to wider society, a micro society if you will. Whereas in the wider world we have various interest groups, on campus we have societies. These expressions of differing interests make our University diverse and stimulating. The University added that they ‘host many visitors and events every year’ and that they themselves are ‘a community of 150 nations’. On campus do we remain part of the wider law of the land or, within the student body, are we able to make and define our own set of democratic policies?
Some university members we spoke to felt that the law was applicable to all institutions and therefore, freedom of speech should exist on campus, just as it does elsewhere. When speaking to Fabian Neuner, President of the Guild, he stressed that there is a fundamental difference between the University as an institution and the Guild. Drawing from this distinction he stated: ‘The Guild is a membership organisation and so technically a private members’ club. Who we invite to speak in our Guild is up to us, therefore I think freedom of speech is never absolute. To clarify, as far as I can recall the Guild has never prevented a speaker from talking on campus’.
The aftermath of Dr Tamimi’s speech brought about the question of who can, and should, come to speak on campus. A pluralistic society theoretically means a diversity of interests are represented, allowing individuals to articulate varying opinions. This is in essence a core principle of democracy. David Dunphy, a Maths and Music student who signed the ‘Keep Birmingham University Hate Free’ petition added, ‘in any form of a democracy you need to be allowed to state your opinion on any matter’. Following hearing Tamimi speak, he expressed his regret at joining the group and found he had underestimated his own value on freedom of speech for all on campus.
A Debate?
At the centre of university education is the ability to express, develop and question opinions. The presence of a platform for speakers leads to open debate, which is undoubtedly a core tenet of an educational setting. However, the situation concerning speakers at the University is not a simple one. Some students interviewed associated a platform with an accumulation of tension, and deemed certain speakers as a threat to the University, and the equilibrium within it. The term ‘preach hatred’ has increasingly been linked with those speaking at universities, and some see the platform as a means by which friction is accumulating. Green and Curtis voiced a fear concerning the University’s decision to allow certain speakers on campus. When questioned directly on his petition against Tamimi speaking, Green stated: ‘it wasn’t what he said in the talk that worried us, it was that he was given a platform.’ The Islamic Society felt their decision for Tamimi to speak was the right one as ‘it was an important element of the vital dialogue that needs to take place, in relation to the peace process’.
This leads to the question of whether the University has the right to prohibit certain viewpoints on campus. In turn, one must then question whether eliminating the platform means that arguments are strengthened, rather than silenced. If an opinion is not given a voice, then how can it ever be defeated? If a speaker can be questioned on their beliefs, then many of the fears about them might be allayed. Perhaps the issue can be summed up by Neuner, who stated that: ‘if you hold a debate under the banner of a university and education, you can’t have polemics’.
Code of Conduct
When assessing the issues regarding speakers on campus, the University’s Code of Conduct comes into question. The current policy has been criticised for being too vague in its wording, yet too complicated in its practice. It states that ‘the challenge for universities is to identify when the pursuit of freedom of ideas and expression crosses a threshold and becomes extremism or intolerance’, yet is not clear in how to implement this. Furthermore, procedure for securing a speaker at the Guild has been faulted for being too lengthy and complex. A member of the Islamic Society commented that current procedure ‘gives student groups very little time and space to organise an event’. The President of the Guild seemed to agree with criticism of the policy not being clear, and spoke of a review that has now been initiated. He raised the opinion that speakers need to be considered on a ‘case by case’ basis and that clearer guidelines need to be enforced for students to raise any possible issues. A spokesperson for the University commented that ’ the code of practice is reviewed regularly, and representatives on the current review reflect the broader University community, including the President of the Guild of Students’.
In turn, the need for more advertising both to attract wider audiences and raise awareness of speakers was highlighted. This gives the hope that both opposers and supporters may have the appropriate resources to prepare sound arguments and make informed decisions.
Universities are places where a variety of opinions should and do exist, but precautions are necessary to ensure they do not simply become a forum in which one-sided arguments prevail. A final point from a University’s spokesperson states that ‘we respect the right of all individuals to exercise freedom of speech within the law’. They add that ‘under the 1986 Education Act we have a legal duty to promote freedom of speech’, and as an institution ‘will continue to actively challenge discrimination of any kind and strive to strike a balance that protects these freedoms and ensures vigilance against any forms of potential extremism.’
‘University’, from its Latin derivation ‘universitas’, means the whole. Therefore, we must strive to ensure that the ‘whole’ of our voice can be heard. After all, ‘the test of democracy is the freedom of criticism’.
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment - Login/Register