By Harry Spindler
Universities Minister Jo Johnson recently announced that the newly formed Office of Students will be granted powers to fine, suspend and register universities that fail to uphold a certain level of freedom of speech. What does this mean for students?
The recent growth of “safe spaces” on campuses across the country will likely be clamped down on following this move and universities which promote a ‘no platform’ policy are also under pressure to rethink in the name of freedom of speech.
I rarely praise anything that the Conservative party does, especially in recent years. However, I appreciate Johnson’s attempts or more so, his intention to increase debate in British Universities and transparency in our mindsets. Through empowerment of our voices, our freedom of speech is protected. But threats to those who protect students from voices that spread homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, transphobic and antisemitic messages, dissuades many to speak up. This is giving hate a platform.
Manchester Met is one of the better universities that offers a vast array of societies and cultural groups’ freedom of speech. Most students agree that in order to help ourselves, Hate Speech must be blocked. One student told me: “Giving a voice to those who want to hurt people isn’t right, we shouldn’t be trying to promote one way to live our lives but then offering people the option to hurt others.”
Another student argued that: “I can’t see anything useful coming from giving hateful people a way to spread their views, if you give these people the opportunity to make others feel the same unexplained anger they do, then instead of furthering society to an accepting future, you’re creating a bigger divide.”
It seems that students prefer to keep these views out of the limelight and swept under the rug. Whilst this makes sense, will segregation of those with aggressive opinions add further detriment to us all?
Many universities still invite controversial speakers to their campuses. Security increases and pre-reading the material of a controversial guest, efforts that protect students and staff also ensures establishments provide a space for freedom of speech. And whilst many students argue that only the voices they want to hear should be promoted, Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson are free to spit their nonsensical bile in the media.
It’s true by giving such figures a platform we perhaps risk giving their ideologies the same opportunity to sway the mind of the listener. We must exercise caution when giving those who seek to spread hate a platform.
We must counteract these voices using debate and reason.
The only way to prevent people harboring these ideas is through communication. Segregation pushes them to darker corners where they assuredly drop further into these hateful thoughts.
It would appear that Johnson assumes if everyone is given a place to speak freely, students from every corner of life will discuss or debate their views, in the hopes that a resolution beneficial to all is achieved. However, Johnson’s method of encouraging students to voice their opinions, regardless on where they stand, remains unclear.
Leave a reply