11 May 2021 | Academic Freedom, News and features, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Rt. Hon. Gavin Williamson MP Secretary of State for Education
Department for Education
20 Great Smith St
London, SW1P 3BT
Dear Secretary of State,
As organisations specialising in freedom of expression, we are writing to you to voice our significant concerns regarding the announcement of the Academic Freedom Bill in today’s Queen’s Speech.
There is an important discussion to be had around the state of freedom of expression in the UK’s universities. Hostile powers have felt increasingly emboldened to investigate and even sanction critical academics. Academics are having to both change their curricula and their method of teaching due to external pressures. Universities that fail to comply with government orders have had their sources of funding threatened.
All of the above threats, however, emanate from state powers – not from students. It is far from clear, therefore, that academic freedom will be strengthened by imposing more state control over universities. There is unfortunately, some evidence to suggest that there is a chilling effect on university campuses. For example, 25 per cent of students surveyed by King’s College London describing themselves as scared to express their views openly. We agree that no one should feel uncomfortable expressing their opinion on campus, however the extent to which there is a growing trend of intolerance to speech on campus is unclear. This, furthermore, is a cultural problem – and not something that a blunt legislation will be able to fix.
The extent to which “no platforming” of speakers is a growing trend also needs to be explored further, with research by the government’s own Office for Students suggesting it occurs on a very limited basis. Of more than 62,000 requests by students for external speaker events in English universities in 2017-18, only 53 were rejected by the student union or university, less than 1 per cent of the total.
This was echoed by the British Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights which “did not find the wholesale censorship of debate in universities which media coverage has suggested” in their 2018 report on into Freedom of Speech in Universities, and by a recent WONKHE survey which found that of almost 10,000 events involving an external speaker in 2019-20, just six were cancelled – mainly for failing to follow basic administrative processes. This would suggest that at the very least, further research is required to fully understand the scale of the issue.
Freedom of expression is a vital right. Universities are already bound by government legislation and have a legally binding duty to support and actively encourage freedom of expression on campus, including the right to protest. Blunt statutory tools may fail to recognise the various rights at play in any given situation, for example the rights of the speaker and the rights of students to protest against that speaker. This is a delicate balancing act that universities are best placed to navigate – not state regulators or courts of law. On university campuses, freedom of expression issues are best dealt with by existing legislation and by the universities and Student Unions themselves.
We are very concerned that additional legislation, including the imposition of a “Freedom of Speech Champion”, may have the inverse effect of further limiting what is deemed “acceptable” speech on campus and introducing a chilling effect both on the content of what is taught and the scope of academic research exploration.
None of the signatory organisations have been meaningfully consulted in the development of the legislation thus far. We would welcome the opportunity for genuine engagement in the issue of academic freedom. Further research is needed on the main threats to speech on campus, while the scope of enquiry into academic freedom should be widened to encompass government interference. We therefore call for the Academic Freedom Bill to undergo a full, transparent, and meaningful period of consultation.
Signed:
Index on Censorship
English PEN
Article 19[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
17 Feb 2021 | Academic Freedom, Academic Freedom Statements, News and features, Statements, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116270″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship was founded by writers and scholars, nearly half a century ago, in order to provide a bulwark against censorship. One of our founders, Stephen Spender, stated on our launch that: “The writers and scholars whom one relies on to support (Index) would obviously include those at universities. For the universities represent the developing international consciousness which depends so much on the free interchange of people, and of ideas.”
Which is why we are so intrigued by the Government’s publication of a policy paper outlining their plans to protect free speech and academic freedom on campus in England. Index supports all efforts to protect academic freedom and will work with all stakeholders to protect this core right and while there is much to be applauded in the sentiments outlined, the devil, as always, is in the detail.
The policy paper does touch on one of the most dangerous threats to our collective academic freedom but it doesn’t suggest any policy prescriptions to address the influence of hostile nations in both limiting speech on campus and affecting the curriculum. In recent days, we have seen reports of academics being investigated for breaching national security laws because of their dealings with China. There have been ongoing reports of interference on campus both in terms of the curriculum and the work of student societies. This is where we need a strong government intervention – otherwise these hostile acts will continue unabated.
The Government has outlined seven specific policy proposals ranging from changing the onus on Higher Education providers to be proactive in their defence of academic freedom rather than passive, to the appointment of a Free Speech and Academic Freedom Champion who while working under the auspices of the Office for Students and will have the authority to act as an Ombudsman for complaints related to academic freedom.
Fundamentally the majority of these proposals are actually tweaks to the current legislative framework which already applies to English Universities, with the exception of the new appointment of a Free Speech Champion. In a positive light this could therefore be seen as an effort to simplify the current legal framework in order for people to better understand their rights and therefore they will feel empowered to demand genuine academic freedom.
However, our fear is that this isn’t the case. The Government have recognised that there is a problem on campus which is having a chilling effect in specific specialisms and leading to intolerance rather than debate at some of our academic institutions. This is however a cultural problem and you simply can’t legislate for cultural change – you need the carrot as well as the stick and this is missing from the policy paper.
It is also somewhat Orwellian to appoint a government Champion to determine what is and what is not free speech.
Fundamentally, Index welcomes this renewed commitment to academic freedom and will work with all stakeholders to try and ensure this works – even the new Free Speech Champion… We just wonder if the Government may have been wiser to focus its efforts on ensuring that external pressures from hostile governments were being robustly resisted.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”8843″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
4 Dec 2020 | Academic Freedom, Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115791″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]I love words. I love how language evolves and how a book, or an article or a speech can change your perception of the world in a moment. I am so proud to be part of the team at Index because our role is to make sure that everyone, wherever they live, has a right to use the most core of human rights – our right to free expression. That you and I both have the same rights to have our voices heard.
But just because we have the same rights to free speech doesn’t mean that I have to agree with you, or respect you, or even like you. In fact, my right of free expression empowers me to fundamentally disagree with you and tell you so. It gives me the right to challenge you, to challenge societal norms, to think differently and to make my argument to the world. It allows me to write this blog.
Of course, there are limitations, certain clubs you may choose to join have their own standards and by joining them you are choosing to abide by their rules. Some institutions have set frameworks on language for good reason, but in the main, in our homes, at the pub (whenever we get to go to those again – not that I am bitter about living in Tier 3!), on our social media, free speech empowers people and ensures that the minority have the protected right to be heard.
What we don’t have is a protected right to be liked or respected. Respect is earned. Respect demands that I value your opinion. Respect requires me to think there may be merit in your views. I am a proud anti-racist. I simply can’t and would not respect the views of a racist. I am a proud trade unionist. I could never respect a union-breaker. I am a proud internationalist. I would never respect the arguments of populism or nationalism.
But while I may not respect the people that espouse these views or the ideas themselves that doesn’t mean that I don’t have to tolerate them. It doesn’t mean that they don’t have the right to say them and to promote them. It just means I have the right (and on occasion the responsibility) to challenge them and prove them wrong. I may find someone’s arguments abhorrent (and I do, regularly) and I am never going to respect them but I do have to accept their right to have those views and in a free and fair society I have to tolerate the objectionable.
Which brings me to Cambridge University. On Tuesday (8 December) we will know the result of a ballot of academics at one of our most important academic institutions. The ballot is on the issue of free speech and as you would expect from an institution built on the principles of academic freedoms and intellectual curiosity there is a debate about the definition of free speech. Specifically, whether academics have to respect each other’s opinions or merely tolerate them.
Honestly, I think it would be perverse for an institution which is meant to be free to explore and investigate every aspect of our societies, an institution that demands its academics debate and argue to prove their point, an institution which has a global leadership role – to demand respect for abhorrent views, rather than toleration.
We all want to live in a world where people are nicer to each other, where you can go on social media without fear of abuse, where hate crime is a thing of the past. I don’t think that we’re going to achieve these goals if we demand respect from each other. We need to earn it and the first step on that journey is toleration.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”41669″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
23 Oct 2020 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115302″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Samuel Paty
An educator.
A father.
A martyr.
An inspiration.
Last week Professor Paty was brutally murdered in a Parisian suburb for teaching his students about the basic human right of free speech. A right that is protected by both the French constitution and the European Human Rights Act. A right that we cherish and celebrate.
Our hearts bleed for the pain and sorrow that this tragedy has visited upon his loved ones and the people of France. We stand with them.
Samuel Paty, photo: Ville de Conflans Saint Honorine
No context is or should be required to try and understand this horrendous act. There are no excuses, justifications or mitigations. Professor Paty was doing his job. He was a citizen of the world, educating the next generation about the importance of speech, of language, imagery and art, and their protected place in society. This was a public service undertaken in a public space. He was doing his duty and he was assassinated for it.
As we mourn Samuel’s loss, 14 French citizens are on trial for the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo offices. A further seven people have been arrested related to Samuel’s murder. These people do not represent France. Samuel Paty represents France. These people represent extremists. Samuel Paty represents the mainstream. Those arrested represent hate and fear. Samuel Paty represents hope.
There will be lots or recriminations in the months and years ahead: politicians attempting to exploit people’s fears for their own gain, others trying to excuse or apologise. Neither is acceptable. As a society, it is vital that we come together to celebrate our shared values, in spite of every effort made by some to undermine and attack those values.
In the months ahead Index will continue to report on the Charlie Hebdo case. We will highlight the efforts of French leaders who, in the face of terror, stand tall and use their free speech to protect ours.
And most importantly we will remember.
Samuel Paty, 1973-2020.
He will never be forgotten. We mourn his loss together and we must remember his legacy every time someone tries to undermine or restrict our free speech.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You might also like to read” category_id=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
