The government shouldn’t be meddling in the no-platforming debate

Former Universities Minister Jo Johnson, acting as a belated Father Christmas, brought us all a present this past Boxing Day in the form of a new series of measures to punish universities that participate in “no-platforming”. Bored of getting along with family members at Christmas (he presumably thought), then why not entertain yourself by pitting generations against each other with a debate on free speech in universities?

This issue, instead of being a concern to actual students, only infuriates that Sun-reading uncle. I am frustrated that the Universities Minister, rather than focusing on issues which have a big impact on students like fees or cost of living, spends his time setting up a regulatory body that will monitor the kind of speakers who come to universities. This is a niche issue and one that people barely seem to understand.

Firstly, the most common reason for no-platforming is because of safety. Student unions are liable if they are negligent as to the welfare of both students and visiting speakers. I cannot believe I am defending the bureaucratic nightmare of Warwick SU’s Event Planning Pack, but it does have a purpose. Furthermore, Johnson seems to be confusing student unions with the universities he proposes to fine. SUs are run by and for students and are mostly independent from the universities they are attached to.

Another misconception is that no-platforming is about shielding students’ sensibilities – protecting them from views that are offensive because they are not their own. This does not reflect, for me, the process of inviting external speakers. As an exec member for a political society, I regularly invite people whose views I personally disagree with, but that I think are relevant. I recognise my own responsibility to engage multiple different issues and points of view. On the flip side, I have a responsibility to ensure that we are a welcoming society to all our members and therefore I could not invite someone whose views would be exclusionary.

Barring speakers empowers students to make their voices heard about what kind of speech they want to encourage

This is not a case of defending free speech, but defending the free speech of speakers over that of students. Johnson, in potentially fining universities for no-platforming, is impeding students’ abilities to decide for themselves to whom they are giving legitimacy and support. As the name implies, the practice of no-platforming is not about barring a person from saying what they wish, it is stopping them from using students as a platform to do so. Allowing a person to speak uninterrupted at a university event implies that their views are worth listening to. The message no-platforming sends, in cases like that of Germaine Greer and Milo Yiannopoulis, is that racist, homophobic, and trans-exclusionary speech is the opposite of worthwhile.

Rather than being patronising to students, barring speakers empowers students to make their voices heard about what kind of speech they want to encourage. What is so fantastic about my generation is our open-mindedness towards all kinds of people. We want to exclude only those who support exclusion – which seems to me like poetic justice. No, universities are not being patronising, but the government is for believing we are petty children who throw fits whenever we hear views which contradict our own. Don’t worry, Mr Johnson: by age 18, we have heard bigotry, and we know we don’t want to reward it by inviting it onto our campuses.