Spiked has produced its annual review of British universities and their free-speech policies, putting both the student unions (often powerful determinants of what the students do or don’t get to see) and the university itself into one of three categories, to wit:
Green, then, is good. When there’s a conflict between student union rankings and university rankings (the ones I’ve seen involve red student unions and amber universities), the entire university gets the more censorious ranking. And here’s how they rate (click on the screenshot to go to the page):
It’s not good, as there are 63 red schools, 40 amber schools, and a mere 12 green schools. If you want to see why a university is rated as it is, you can click on each school in the page above (click on screenshot first) to get the breakdown. Here’s why Oxford is red:
Now you might find the rankings too draconian, but I think from what you’ve seen on this site over the last year, you’ll realize that free speech is an endangered practice at many British schools (viz., the pervasive no-platforming of politically repugnant speakers and harassment of people like Maryam Namazie). And it’s getting worse, at least according to Spike‘s graphic:
Note that it’s the student unions more than the universities themselves that adopt forms of censorship. That’s especially distressing, as those students are going to be the future leaders of Britain.
I was still surprised to see LSE and Edinburgh ranking as the “least free” schools: I would have guessed Goldsmiths would get the booby prize.
h/t: Dennis M.
Alarming insight to the thinking of Student bodies on UK campuses (are schools following student behavior or are they being pulled in their direction?). Anyone know if a similar assessment exists for North American campuses? It would certainly be an interesting exercise to see how student groups compare to their University as a whole.
There’s one for US universities somewhere, I forget the name. I also don’t think it includes the student society rules.
(There’s also the reverse: D. Horowitz’ (?) “campus radicals” list, which was basically an attack on free speech and academic freedom by the neocons.)
“are schools following student behavior or are they being pulled in their direction?”
If there weren’t enough downsides to the introduction and escalation of student fees already, this is another one: the more you make students pay, the greater their sense of entitlement and the less administrations can afford to annoy them.
The Huxley/Wilberforce debate would likely be banned today.
Dawkins debated Rowan Williams (the Archbishop of Canterbury) at Oxford in 2012, so unless things have deteriorated greatly in the last four years, it might still be willing to host Huxley/Wilberforce.
Finding someone foolish enough to stand up against Dawkins on home turf … actually, since we’re talking about the religiously-deluded, that may not be too hard.
sub
Interesting that most of those in green are relatively new institutions with many of them being former polytechnics that were granted university status from 1992 onwards. I’m trying to figure out why that should be.
sub
Great Post. I there there a list like it for the U.S.?
This is very disturbing. I would have thought the UK more open minded, tougher (love the debates in Parliament!)
Yeah, shame congress doesn’t have the equivalent of “question time.”
I looked at the details among several of the Red-ranked universities. There would be fewer red and more ambers if I were in control.
Some included disciplinary actions against a frat or other group that made rape jokes. I get it that that is free speech among individuals, but from a group it would be pretty scary, no? Also, I don’t think that having a 0 tolerance policy against sexual harassment would count count against a university. Unless 0 tolerance means draconian punishments for having a nude poster in a dorm room.
Finally, why is the ‘Blurred Lines’ song was so offensive as to make it ban-worthy? That one turned up a couple times.
Blurred lines can be interpreted as condoning rape. For example:
I hate these blurred lines
I know you want it
And misogynistic, sexist, degrading, etc:
Had a bitch, but she ain’t bad as you
So, hit me up when you pass through
I’ll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two
Also, the video is basically just naked women dancing around the singer.
Not that I think it should be banned. But it’s a pretty offensive song. The lyrics are just terrible. Here’s the whole thing:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/robinthicke/blurredlines.html
A lot of rap music is just as bad or worse.
Many regressives I’ve had discussions with will argue that misogyny, racism, anti-Muslim bigotry in the west are so important that they dwarf any concerns many of us have about free speech, and we should therefore shut up. They will agree that it’s an issue we need to keep an eye on, but feel if it becomes truly “problematic” we can deal with it then. Perhaps ratings like this will convince them that it’s a much bigger issue than they seem willing to believe it is.
Just from a (very) brief look at some of the reasons why unions got ‘red’, the categorisations sometimes seem a little over the top. For example having a policy that prevents songs which promote sexual violence, misogyny or homophobia from being played at students’ union club nights, is enough to warrant a ‘red’ category, as are rules against sexual or homophobic harassment. These seems like relatively sensible attempts to promote a civil atmosphere – I’d imagine most workplaces have similar policies. It’s certainly a long way from (e.g.) banning speakers because of their opinions (IMO).
Agree.
It might be interesting to plot banning on one axis vs. any of a number of other variables–I’m thinking specifically of muslims as a percentage of the student body–and see if anything interesting falls out (i. e., if some group or another is using banning to shut up their political opponents).
What’s UCLA doing in the Amber group?
And when did it move to England?!
🙂 When you go to the website you discover it’s the University of Central Lancashire.
(And the acronym they use is actually UCLAN, it’s just truncated above. It’s probably UCLAN to distinguish it from the UCL in the red zone.)
I was disappointed to see that my daughter’s university, Keele, has moved from green to amber.
Like several others here I also have to confess myself puzzled about some of the hair-trigger criteria provided by Spiked. “Zero Tolerance to Harassment” is bad how exactly? I am starting to wonder if they don’t have an ideological axe to grind themselves. In other cases more detail would be needed to assess what is behind decisions to ban e.g. a club or newspaper.
There also seem to be different perspectives on what a university is. Is it primarily a marketplace of ideas comparable to an internet comment thread or is it a work environment where people have to get along and be respectful to each other?
I hope it is clear that certain things that somebody should technically, legally be allowed say in a public forum without being arrested for it (= free speech) would, if said among colleagues in the work environment, indeed make it impossible to get along with each other and lead to minorities being bullied out.
There have been places (don’t know if any are affected here) where I’ve heard that “zero tolerance” has resulted in “zero evidence needed”, which can be draconian.
Sure, but “this could be interpreted as…” goes both ways. One the one hand wording a policy in a certain way may lead to overzealous officials sanctioning somebody for making a harmless joke. On the other hand, not having the policies they criticise in place doesn’t work either.
I mean, I read through the Spiked editor’s personal blog, find myself nodding along with him for a few paragraphs, and then stop and think: did he really just imply that one should be able to chat up a random woman in the corridor and then just plant a kiss on her without consent? How is that not creating a hostile climate for everybody who has any feeling of personal space whatsoever? What would he think if I walked up to him and did the same? And what if he had to walk through five groups of people catcalling at him every time he went out for a beer?
There are exaggerated regulations, but there is also an exaggerated rejection of regulation.
Oh Good! My university (Southampton) is one of the enlightened ones. It has always had a strong STEM tendency; perhaps that encourages pragmatism.
The amount of Red is bloody depressing.
Disappointed that my alma mater (Edinburgh) is in the red group.Ehen I was a student there in the 1960’s it seemed pretty liberal.
The Uni I work in is green. ‘Ray!
Le sigh.
Not surprised to see my old lot, Salford, in the reds. They were bad enough when I was there (90-94). Then again most of the student body simply ignored the SU except for access to beer, sports and other resources and left the politics up to the people who got a kick out of that sort of nonsense.
I do seem to remember that an attempt was made to sack all of the incumbent officers at one point. That was fun!
FWIW the NUS was, and probably still is, seen as a bit of a joke with a fetish for insanely pedantic and humourless political correctness.