Controversial speakers on campus: Protest or debate?

At its core, freedom of speech rests on the principle that anyone in this country (within legal limits) can say what they like, making it a pillar of democracy and a defining feature of
the British values of individual liberty, tolerance, and mutual respect.

This year, the issue of freedom of speech on university campuses has been brought into intense question

This year, the issue of freedom of speech on university campuses has been brought into intense question, and not just at Warwick. The Warwick PPE Society’s Q&A event in January with Reform’s George Finch, the Warwickshire County Council Leader, as well as their recent partnership in The Daily T’s event with ex-Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg, has sparked significant opposition amongst students. Campaign group Warwick Against Hate in the run-up to both events made public statements on Instagram calling on “all students, staff and the people of Warwick to boycott” and that “[they] reject this and the continued attempt to normalise far-right figures”. We have also seen protests outside the venues of these events as well as one
student notoriously attempting to run throw a shoe at Finch.

However, as an observer of these protests against right-wing speakers, some questions about whether these protests are effective to challenge their rhetoric have arisen, especially on social media. This is not to say that protests shouldn’t happen, but with deplatforming not a sensible choice, and with speakers like Finch able to paint “leftie students” as violent and university as a radicalisation machine, is it time for students to reconsider how controversial views are challenged?

Protests have been a right on campus since 1965

It’s easy to see why some students think these speakers should not be platformed. There are certainly valid reasons for not wanting to engage with these individuals and to argue that their rhetoric is damaging to people on this campus. The sentiment to not allow hate to prosper on our campus is a respectable one. Yet the reality is that the method of protests chosen by Warwick Against Hate and students has given these speakers what they thrive on: examples to share with their sympathisers that the left is violent and that universities like Warwick are radicalisation machines, a waste of time and money.

In the aftermath of the highly protested George Finch event, he made use of the clip of the attempted shoe-throwing and the protests to aid his image of moral superiority. On platforms like GB News and The Times, Finch has portrayed such protests at Warwick as examples of left-wing students getting “emotional” and “aggressive”, and an example of “our education system allowing that type of [left-wing] rhetoric”.

So, is there a more effective alternative? The most obvious answer is debating and challenging them in-person, as we saw some students do in both events. It is this questioning that forces these individuals to engage with our arguments rather than hide behind slogans and buzzwords. Fundamentally, it also does not make room for feeding the sensational narratives that we are seeing right-wing figures use to aid their cause.

We need to learn how to tackle those opinions effectively

Protests have been a right on campus since 1965 – it is one of the many benefits of freedom of speech. It is this same sentiment which makes deplatforming unwise. However, as someone concerned with the power the right is grasping in this country, I fear that these well-intentioned protests are giving controversial speakers the sensationalism they thrive on. We need to learn how to tackle those opinions effectively. If students want to challenge harmful rhetoric effectively, direct questioning, debate, and calm scrutiny remain a far more effective alternative.