So one of the Johnson political clan wants university student unions to get rid of no-platforming in debates, with a threat of fines and delisting for universities if they don't comply. For a start, university debating societies are not controlled by universities (you'd think Johnson would know that). Secondly, they can invite whomsoever they want to their debates - who is anyone to dictate who they can or can't invite to speak? It's called choice.
Jo Johnson is quite a clever chap - he's attended more universities than you can shake a stick at. If anyone is from the establishment elite, then he's near the top, so what's behind it? Call me cynical, but I can't help feeling that this has something to do with the word 'union' being in the term student union and possibly that universities are perceived as bastions of left-wing thinking - reactionary parties would naturally want to find a way of promulgating their views.
Political activism in universities is a direct consequence of government policy - government caused it and is being hoisted by its own petard. Given only the Labour party has a policy of eliminating tuition fees, it's hardly surprising student activism falls to the left of the political spectrum - Newton's 3rd Law in action, and the government wants to head it off at the pass.
I'm split on this issue; while I support free speech, I also support the freedom of individuals or organisations to not invite speakers they consider subversive - that's also a form of free speech, or an example of the free market. The problem is that a large number of organisations that use the argument of free speech in order to gain a platform for their views are organisations that would curtail free speech if they were in control. The Daily Mail is a form of free speech which comes dangerously close to incitement, and people lap it up.
Inviting someone to speak and then uninviting them seems a bit churlish. Is that what's meant by no platforming? Just not inviting someone in the first place is within anyone's rights. I think no platforming is a term used by someone who is a bit disgruntled by not being invited to speak and somewhat akin to seeing yourself as a victim because you've not been invited to a party. It's a whinger's charter.
The No Platform policy, as defined in the NUS's articles of association, provides that no "individuals or members of organisations or groups identified by the Democratic Procedures Committee as holding racist or fascist views" may stand for election to any NUS position, or attend or speak at any NUS function or conference. Furthermore, officers, committee members, or trustees may not share a platform with any racist or fascist. The list of proscribed organisations includes the following organisations:Al-Muhajiroun; British National Party; English Defence League; Hizb-ut-Tahrir; Muslim Public Affairs Committee. Can't see anything wring with that.
The NUS also has policy refusing platforms to people or organisations for other reasons: the NUS LGBT Campaign (and formerly, also the Women's Campaign) refuses platforms to those they consider to be transphobic, including Julie Bindel and the National Executive Committee has a policy refusing a platform to those it considers to be rape deniers or rape apologists. Can't see anything fundamentally wrong with that either. Many student unions or debating societies don't follow the no platform agenda.
Political parties scrutinise their candidate lists to select candidates that support the party line, effectively no platforming dissenters, despite the fact they can well be Conservatives on all but one issue - and parties are notorious for changing their minds on certain issues if it's politically expedient to gain votes - what can be Labour policy one day can easily become Conservative policy the next, and vice versa.
What is good is seeing students becoming politically aware as a result of them being directly affected by tuition fees and the withdrawal of maintenance grants. For too long they've been apolitical. It's like the 60s all over again - quite exciting really.
No - no platforming does not harm free speech; those wishing to speak must merely go and find their own platform (like newspapers do) or fund their own debating societies.
I want the Flat Earth Society to be given a platform - they say they have members all around the globe...
Inviting someone to speak and then uninviting them seems a bit churlish. Is that what's meant by no platforming? Just not inviting someone in the first place is within anyone's rights. I think no platforming is a term used by someone who is a bit disgruntled by not being invited to speak and somewhat akin to seeing yourself as a victim because you've not been invited to a party. It's a whinger's charter.
The No Platform policy, as defined in the NUS's articles of association, provides that no "individuals or members of organisations or groups identified by the Democratic Procedures Committee as holding racist or fascist views" may stand for election to any NUS position, or attend or speak at any NUS function or conference. Furthermore, officers, committee members, or trustees may not share a platform with any racist or fascist. The list of proscribed organisations includes the following organisations:Al-Muhajiroun; British National Party; English Defence League; Hizb-ut-Tahrir; Muslim Public Affairs Committee. Can't see anything wring with that.
The NUS also has policy refusing platforms to people or organisations for other reasons: the NUS LGBT Campaign (and formerly, also the Women's Campaign) refuses platforms to those they consider to be transphobic, including Julie Bindel and the National Executive Committee has a policy refusing a platform to those it considers to be rape deniers or rape apologists. Can't see anything fundamentally wrong with that either. Many student unions or debating societies don't follow the no platform agenda.
Political parties scrutinise their candidate lists to select candidates that support the party line, effectively no platforming dissenters, despite the fact they can well be Conservatives on all but one issue - and parties are notorious for changing their minds on certain issues if it's politically expedient to gain votes - what can be Labour policy one day can easily become Conservative policy the next, and vice versa.
What is good is seeing students becoming politically aware as a result of them being directly affected by tuition fees and the withdrawal of maintenance grants. For too long they've been apolitical. It's like the 60s all over again - quite exciting really.
No - no platforming does not harm free speech; those wishing to speak must merely go and find their own platform (like newspapers do) or fund their own debating societies.
I want the Flat Earth Society to be given a platform - they say they have members all around the globe...
1 comment:
I agree up to a point, but, I think Universities are special cases. This is because they are institutions intended to be forums for debate and the exploration of different points of view. You could argue that the whole point of them is to foster free-speech and independent thought.
As for private members clubs (like the NUS) I don't really care what rules they have, they can discriminate against whatever they like. The rest of us need only bear the responsibility of poking fun at them when they make themselves look stupid.
On the whole I think the current SJW movement and/or post-modernism/relativism (that seems to be embedded in Universities at the moment) are detrimental things they (generalization) seem to be snowflakes that take "offence" far too easily and generally hold simplistic and un-nuanced views on complex topics, they also tend to be science deniers too. Fortunately I feel the tide is changing on this, the next generation of kids seems to be a bit more pragmatic & curious, these things do seem to flip-flop across the generations.
Post a Comment