‘First, give no offence’

Academics have internalised the culture of censorship on campus.

Dennis Hayes

Share
Topics Free Speech UK

As the new academic year has begun, the debate about whether free speech is under threat on campus has erupted once again. Many in academia are concerned about freedom of speech being undermined, by overbearing campus bureaucracy, students’ union censorship, and a broader culture of intolerance. But there are many who are still wilfully ignorant of the scale of the problem.

While some vice-chancellors, like Oxford’s Louise Richardson, have spoken out against campus censorship, others have buried their heads in the sand. You can understand why. For them to admit that there is a crisis of free speech on campus would be to admit to a personal failing. Universities, after all, are supposed to be places in which ideas can be freely put forward and freely challenged.

But the arguments used by VCs and others against the existence of campus censorship simply do not stack up. Universities UK, the voice of VCs, has said that hundreds, if not thousands of unrestricted events take place at universities every year, thus disproving the idea that there is an ‘epidemic’ of censorship.

But no one is saying that every other event on campus is being shut down. The vast majority of events on campus each year are uncontentious. It is ridiculous to conflate geography lectures with controversial political meetings. The point is that those events that do go against the grain often find themselves in the crosshairs of campus censors.

The test for our commitment to free speech is not whether or not we allow non-controversial events to take place. And in any case, as others have noted, the scale of censorship is often downplayed and defined out of existence.

One example of this is No Platform policies. While many students’ unions maintain these blacklists, which pre-emptively ban certain groups from campus, this is rarely accounted for in the arguments of those who say campus censorship is a myth. They say that bans on meetings or speakers are relatively rare, while ignoring the fact that students are, in many cases, not allowed to invite certain speakers or groups in the first place.

There is no denying the extent of censorship on campus. Organised attempts to ban certain speakers or sack certain academics are, if anything, on the increase. The chosen weapon these days is often online petitions and open letters, aimed at forcing campus authorities to capitulate. Over the past 12 months alone we have seen: young academic Noah Carl sacked by the University of Cambridge following a smear campaign against him; author Jordan Peterson having a fellowship offer rescinded over concerns about ‘inclusivity’; a researcher on extremism banned by Bristol University after students accused her of Islamophobia; and an Open University conference on prison reform shut down by trans activists, to name just a few cases. (See Academics for Academic Freedom’s ‘Banned List’ for more.)

And that is without getting into the many attempts by academic and student mobs to have certain individuals sacked or gagged. Even when these campaigns are not successful, they help to foster a culture of conformism and fear. Many vice-chancellors and Panglossian commentators, seeking to downplay the scale of censorship on campus, completely ignore this wider climate.

What they miss is that formal restrictions on speakers are now, in some respects, unnecessary. And no, this is not because the Office for Students, a new non-departmental public body, has warned that it might punish those universities that do not meet their obligations to uphold freedom of speech. Rather, No Platforming has been internalised. Many academics and students simply do not invite controversial speakers or raise controversial issues.

This is akin to what the author Kenan Malik has observed since the Salman Rushdie affair – that is, that we have ‘internalised’ the fatwa. He argues that the fear of giving offence to Muslims, by criticising or questioning Islam, is now so great that restrictions on such ‘blasphemy’ need not be enforced by a theocrat putting a target on your back. These standards, he says, are enforced by a culture of conformism.

And in universities, this culture extends to all kinds of controversial issues. The unstated rule, ‘don’t give offence!’, operates throughout committees, staff meetings, programmes and public-relations exercises.

The lack of academic challenge to this culture is often explained as a desire among many academics for a quiet life. But not giving offence has also become a key part of professional etiquette. It is now a norm of academic life, and students inevitably pick up on it. But anyone truly committed to academic life should resist this kind of self-censorship.

The Panglossian perspective on free speech at universities is a delusion. It downplays the scale of censorship and ignores the wider cultural forces at play. Speech on campus is very much unfree. It is regulated by the rule of ‘first, give no offence’.

Dennis Hayes is a professor of education at the University of Derby.

Dennis is speaking at the session ‘What’s the point of going to university?’ at the Battle of Ideas festival this weekend. Get tickets here.

Picture by: Getty

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Lord Anubis

31st October 2019 at 2:27 pm

How times have changed, When I was at Southampton in the late 70’s, we had speakers like Mary Whitehouse and David Irving. Not only did these speakers speak to packed houses, any attempt by anybody to disrupt the meetings resulted in the other students evicting the disrupters. (And there were only ever one or two hecklers on each occasion as I recall)

Claire D

31st October 2019 at 1:39 pm

Perhaps it is academics desire ‘ for a quiet life ‘ that is partly to blame for the situation we now find ourselves in. ‘ All it takes for evil to thrive is for a good man to do nothing ‘. Peculiar degrees have been allowed (Gender Studies, Race Studies etc) and it has been too easy to progress with these where there is no real intellectual rigour, because no serious person with any integrity would have anything to do with such subjects. You can almost hear the old academics, ” Oh let them get on with it and leave me in peace, just as long as I can concentrate on my highly specialised area of inquiry on the use of the comma in Shakespeare etc “.
And that ties in with Philip’s point below about the intellectual bankruptcy that is on the rise.

Willie Penwright

31st October 2019 at 1:09 pm

Prof Hayes should not have been given a platform by Spiked to put forward his wrong views. Now I have thoughts that I should not have been exposed to. Please sign the petition to close down the internet to protect university students from the wrong ideas.

Ven Oods

31st October 2019 at 11:06 am

Fewer universities offering fewer joke degree courses might improve things, or is that just too Panglossian?

Michael Lynch

31st October 2019 at 9:10 am

It happens first on University campuses – look at Germany in the 1930s.

L Strange

31st October 2019 at 1:54 pm

Or the Red Guard in China.

Philip Humphrey

31st October 2019 at 7:31 am

It’s important to remember that censorship in whatever form is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem, intellectual bankruptcy. If the ideas and values of the censorious were intellectually coherent and defensible, they wouldn’t need to censor. But much of academia now adheres to “critical theory” that sees everything through a distorting lens, dividing the world arbitrarily into “oppressed” and ” oppressors”. And the intellectual value of any idea anything in their twisted world depends on who said it and the history of their group. Of course it is completely indefensible intellectually, five minutes’ serious thought reveals it for the nonsense it is. But they’re so in love with the idea that they would rather censor than attempt to defend it.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.