Read on Twitter
We should have a quick look at Gavin Williamson's op-ed on today's launch of free speech measures, really. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/02/16/turning-tide-cancel-culture-will-start-universities-respecting/
"Last year, I warned our vice-chancellors and leaders of the very real and alarming threat of censorship and a ‘cancel culture’ within our universities."
Yes he did, in rival paper the Times, when he said "If universities don’t take action, the government will. If necessary, I’ll look at changing the underpinning legal framework, perhaps to clarify the duties of students’ unions or strengthen free speech rights."
This was his "final warning" piece from Feb 7th last year https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/if-universities-cant-defend-free-speech-the-government-will-jwmnfznh7
Today he says that "despite our repeated warnings and good practice from some of institutions, I have been greatly concerned to hear a growing number of reports of a silencing of voices and a chilling effect of censorship on campus".
He doesn't really say what he means other than "students have found themselves wrongfully expelled from their courses, academics fired and others forced to live under a threat of violence"
I can't work out what he's on about when he says students have been expelled. Je might mean that Nottingham case involving a pro-life student midwife but that was from 2019 and she was never expelled. Maybe he meant this Sheffield case from years ago. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/03/christian-student-kicked-university-course-gay-marriage-views/
I don't know who the academics are that have been fired since last year?
He goes on to say that he was "shocked by the findings of a recent study by King’s College London, that found a quarter of students believed violence was an acceptable response to some forms of speech".
You'd think he meant voting UKIP or something - but that finding was agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘If someone is using hate speech or making racially charged comments"
The study also found 51% of students think freedom of expression is threatened in the UK overall, compared with 22% who say the same of their own universities. 56% say rising political polarisation is contributing to this threat in the UK. And the KIng's study is from 2019.
He goes on "When you add this worrying finding to the high profile cases of guest speakers being no-platformed, it becomes very apparent that further action must be taken".
I honestly can't think of anyone that's been NP'd this year. Some protest yes (that's free speech) and some objection - but any actual cancelled events or bans other than Amber Rudd?
The only one I can think of is Chris Wiliamson, who was invited to speak to the Royal Holloway Debating Society had his invitation rescinded after objections were raised by the local Labour Party and a number of student societies, including the Jewish Society.
The rest of it describes the proposals, which still haven't been published on the spurious excuse that they need to be laid before Parliament (it's in recess).
We know there will be a new duty to "actively promote" FoS which is fine. Current duty is "take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured" so maybe actively promote is better.
"To ensure they do so, this new duty will be reflected in a new condition for registration with the Office for Students, who will be able to impose sanctions on universities that breach it."
This suggests that a new CoR will be created. But condition E1 (Public interest governance) already requires providers to uphold public interest governance principles that include:
"The governing body takes such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured within the provider."
and "Academic staff at a provider have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom; and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at the provider."
Next he says "Students’ unions, previously exempt from free speech duties, would for the first time have a direct legal duty to take steps to ensure lawful free speech for their members and others, including guest speakers."
That's kind of true. The current duty is on universities and just says that "Where a students’ union occupies premises which are not premises of the establishment in connection with which the union is constituted...
...any reference in this section to the premises of the establishment shall be taken to include a reference to the premises occupied by the students’ union."
The question of who will impose fines is interesting - it would surely be OfS - which would need to establish a register of students' unions? Or maybe the fine will be on providers who should then pass it on? Maybe we'll find out later when we see detail.
This is fascinating: "Meanwhile, individuals, whether academic staff or students, would be able to seek compensation through the courts if they feel they have suffered due to a breach and our new Champion would also be able to recommend individual redress."
The rest of the T article just political noise. Lots of questions until we see the actual proposals.
Strikes me a lot will depend on how proposals draw line between acceptable conduct of students (protest) and unacceptable (harassment) and whether/how you hold unis/SUs to a duty to protect controversial academics from people voicing objection.
Good news, I think, is that while we can debate the scale of the problem, we can't debate the extent to which SUs take freedom of speech seriously and are ready willing and able to protect it. https://wonkhe.com/blogs/our-radical-student-led-proposals-will-secure-and-champion-campus-free-speech/
