“The beauty of freedom of expression is the ability to rejoice in ideas”

Several months ago, Maryam Namazie, a lifelong campaigner for secularism and for human rights initially had her invitation to speak to the Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists student society rescinded on the grounds that she could incite hatred. Given Maryam’s track record campaigning for human rights and for secularism, such an indictment was obviously ridiculous and patently false.

This is not an isolated incident – it happens frequently at universities across the entire country. Another similar incident occurred when human rights activist, Peter Tatchell, was outrageously called a “racist” and a “transphobe” by a high-ranking officer within the NUS. Fran Cowling, the LGBT officer of the National Union of Students was scheduled to talk at an event alongside Tatchell but then went on to no-platform herself in protest.

What is more, Spiked magazine recently released its Free Speech University Rankings. For 115 universities, 63 had the RED rating, indicating it “has banned and actively censored ideas on campus”. Warwick was, unsurprisingly (but worryingly), in this category.

For 115 universities, 63 had the RED rating, indicating it “has banned and actively censored ideas on campus”

For such reasons, we worked with various other student campaigners across the country to create the #Right2Debate campaign. The #Right2Debate campaign is a nationwide initiative that aims to reform student union and NUS policies. Those who break the law, i.e. those calling for violence against individuals or inciting hatred, must, of course, be no-platformed.

However, this should only be done if unequivocal citable evidence can be given for students to see. We believe that when it comes to narratives or beliefs considered ‘offensive’, ‘divisive’ or ‘insensitive’, debate rather than censorship should always be the approach of student unions and the NUS. The same applies to those who critique, mock and/or satirise ideas and beliefs.

Those calling for violence against individuals or inciting hatred, must, of course, be no-platformed

When it comes to safe space policies of student unions they are, in principle, sensible. They endeavour to stop university environments being friction-laden, divisive and hostile for students. The problem though is that ‘safe space’ policies are creating excessive degrees of censorship and no-platforming, based solely on account of a speaker having beliefs that differ from the conventional.

Universities have a responsibility to protect their students. But student unions seem to have forgotten that they also have a responsibility to ensure that freedom of expression is safeguarded on our campuses. It is worth considering the true purpose of a university. It should not be principally a business, but a space for intellectual discussion and engagement.

Universities have a responsibility to protect their students

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and no single view is sacred. Feelings do not possess any right to walk in an aura of untouchability. Who decides whose offence is more valid? It is infuriating to hear someone start a sentence with: “I support freedom of speech, but….”. Freedom of speech is either for all, or it is for none.

There is something rather sinister about the unbridled confidence concerning these particular narratives that must not be questioned, and anything that happens to do so must be deemed forbidden. Students should be equipped with the knowledge and critical reasoning skills to challenge views that they disagree with. This requires a university initiative that privileges civil debate as opposed to narrative sanitisation.

Students should be equipped with the knowledge and critical reasoning skills to challenge views that they disagree with

So, how can this be applied in practice? The #Right2Debate campaign believes that pluralism and civil debate are of paramount importance for students. Therefore, any controversial speaker who is in breach of safe-space policies should be platformed alongside a speaker proffering the opposing narrative – agreed upon by both students and the Student Union.

This would foster pluralism, it would respect free-speech and, most importantly, it would allow students to have their already-held conviction substantiated or instead transformed. If a speaker professes bigoted views then students must understand why their views flounder when exposed to argumentation through civil debate.

This would foster pluralism, it would respect free-speech

If universities do not provide students with the skills, tools, and the willingness to actively engage with opposing ideas then they will be ill-equipped to deal with controversial topics outside of university environments. We, as students, do not want to be mollycoddled. Students do not learn how to deal with contentious views if they are not at the very least exposed to them.The idea that censorship will alter the views of those you silence, is naïve, albeit well intentioned.

Censorship would have the dire ramification of solidifying entrenchment within such points of view. Barring someone from speaking compromises a fundamental right to free speech, and leaves their view uncontested, rather than defeated.

We, as students, do not want to be mollycoddled

Opinions are never changed by silencing someone you don’t agree with. Reasoned debate is the only way to do so. #Right2Debate endorses debate and the restoration of trust between students and their unions through reformation of policy.

This movement needs young, engaged individuals who are committed to free speech and the challenging of controversial views. Active engagement with these ideas, and empowerment, are at the heart of the #Right2Debate’s agenda. Students must be encouraged to form their own ideas and to shape their worldview without being pressured to adopt a particular stance.

This movement needs young, engaged individuals who are committed to free speech

The beauty of freedom of expression is the ability to rejoice in ideas shared, and also fulfilling your responsibility to engage in discussion with ideas with which you disagree, and combating those you dislike. Silence is not golden.

You do not destroy ideas with censorship, just as you do not destroy them with artillery. Debate is the only way to educate and dismantle problematic ideas.

Damian LeChat Lewis & Benjamin David