When I was President of @kclsu, the Islamic Soc ran a week on green issues from Islam’s perspective. An excellent initiative with many speakers. The day before, an article appeared from @PeterTatchell calling for a speaker to be no platformed [thread] http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/muslim-extremist-hosted-by-kings-college-london/

I had no idea who the speaker was but the concerns were serious. He had been accused of making homophobic and antisemitic remarks in the past. We immediately convened leaders of Jewish Society, Islamic Society and the LGBTQ+ Society. It was a remarkable, sensible conversation.

Striking was how much we had in common. We spoke for over an hour and decided the event should go ahead but Presidents of each society could signal to me at any time and we’d end the session, there and then. We also agreed both presidents could ask questions on previous remarks.

It went ahead. Students were excellent and lots was learnt - the speaker stayed firmly on Islam’s relationship with the environment. The president of LGBTQ+ asked about previous remarks. We debriefed after and were struck by how much we all got from the event going ahead.

3x things:
1. The ‘side choosing’ of our politics has done immeasurable harm to debate and discourse
2. Getting people in a room together to discuss issues is always the best way forward
3. No platform v let them speak is too narrow a debate
[ends]