According to the BBC and the Independent, students at the London School of Economics—a hotbed of censorship—set up a free speech society, the LSESU Speakeasy (Facebook page here).
The Speakeasy is dedicated to fighting the pervasive banning of speakers on British campuses by student unions, like the one below from Manchester University (where Matthew teaches; note that Bindel’s invitation was said to violate Manchester’s “safe space policy”):
The next thing that happened is that an LSE student, Marice Banerjee Palmer, filed a complaint against the society, asking the student government to consider banning it. But Palmer’s letter in the LSESU newspaper makes it pretty clear that his complaint is a joke designed to test how far a student government would actually go. His letter says this:
Have I undertaken Anti-Freedom February? Well to be honest, I don’t really want to ban the Speakeasy/ Free Speech society. But I want to make a point; that, and it would be hilarious if the anti-ban society was actually banned.
But then he goes on to enumerate the problems with the Speakeasy:
Firstly, they are ill-informed. At best Speakeasy/Free Speech seems to be naïve to the limits on freedom of expression. At worst they pretty much endorse hate speech (which is illegal). Moreover they don’t seem to have put any effort into understanding the rationale behind safe spaces, or their effect. And for a supposedly pro-debate organisation they don’t seem awfully keen on putting across the other side of the argument.
Secondly, they are self-important. The first thing I thought when I saw the article in the Evening Standard was ‘Who on earth are these guys?’ Really, where have these crusaders been? Why weren’t they up on stage with me when I was fighting Meat Free Mondays? Why aren’t they side- by-side with Xiaoyuan Li and Peter Lyon lambasting the SU in The Beaver? Where are their posts on LSE Memes for crying out loud?! Instead of actually doing any debating, our three musketeers have decided to set up a society in the name of debate and get their faces in the papers.
The second half of their self-importance is that they seem to fall into a group of people who don’t like a perceived focus on women and minorities. They seem to be looking for a victim card to play and to ‘confuse a loss of advantage with an act of oppression’, to borrow Robin Ince’s phrase. Justified or not, the maligned SU measures are aimed at solving a problem which they don’t seem to find serious and for which they explain no alternatives.
This all seems like a big joke to me, especially because Palmer says he wrote an earlier piece against banning. The free-speech society, headed by former Spiked intern Charlie Parker, says it will fight back:
Parker, Speakeasy’s president, described the motion as “ludicrous,” adding: “The fact there is a motion to ban our society – after just over a week of its existence and before we’ve even held an event – proves the need for this group better than we ever could.”
But really, how could the Independent and the BBC not discern that this is probably a setup—a collusion between Parker and Palmer to highlight the ridiculous banning policies of British student unions? The BBC, for instance, describes the issue with complete seriousness.
But, to be fair, the NUS will indeed debate this issue in a few weeks, and it would be truly ironic if they banned a free-speech society. If they have any self-awareness, they’ll leave it alone. Still, I suppose there’s some cause for worry given the well known dissimulation of the NUS, whose President engages in doublespeak:
But NUS president Megan Dunn said: “It’s simply not the case that [no-platformed speakers] are banned or censored, it’s just whether they are invited to a students’ union to speak or not. This is about students’ unions, they’re democratic organisations.”
Maybe a “no platform” policy isn’t “censoring,” but it’s certainly “banning”!
h/t: Benjamin
Sub
sub
I’m a bit confused about the power that the National Union of Students has. Do they own the premises where ‘controversial’ speakers are invited to speak? What gives them the authority to ban people or other student unions?
No, the Student Unions don’t own the premises, the universities do.
However, the universities normally only allow students to organise such events by going through the Student Unions. I presume that this is mostly administrative convenience for the universities, so that they only have to deal with one body.
However, UK universities also have a legal duty to promote free speech, and as I see it that implies they need to allow groups of student to host such events regardless of the attitude of the Unions. (I discuss this here.)
Thank you. So Speakeasy can be banned by the NUS because it’s a part of the NUS, which is more or less obligatory because on their own student societies can’t get things done?
I have done a bit of googling on this National Union of Students and it seems to me they have an enormous amount of power because basically every student society is a part of this umbrella organisation. So if a student is not a member of the Student Union, he will miss out on an enormous amount of privileges and activities while in university.
Each university’s Student Union does effectively have a local monopoly, and thus does have a lot of power. The NUS itself has less power, since it cannot instruct the individual Student Unions.
Contrary to “Coel”, the answer varies depending on which country you’re in. If you’re in England (one of the three countries that constitute the “United Kingdom”), and probably on which university you’re at. From the grey hairs on my friends (Past Presidents of the Student’s Union, at different times), the prospect of the SU going bankrupt and having to sell the city-centre property which it occupied in the 1980s was a live, hair-greying, terror. But the laws were changed in the mid-90s (at least in this country) which took control away from the (elected) Student’s Representative Council and allowed the university to sell off the site (after selling off the rest of their city-centre property). But that is one city, which had two universities while England also had two universities.
Go 70 miles down the road to Dundee, and I simply have no idea what their arrangements were.
Go another 35 miles down (and sideways) the road to St Andrews, and it’s a different set of rules again. What the rules are (were) when you get as far south as Edinburgh, is really beyond me. Cross two national borders (but only one change of legal system) to Cardiff, and I’m not even going to try to guess what the rules are (were) there.
Speaking for any “British” or “UK-ish” system is a difficult claim. I certainly wouldn’t make it. The circumstances are far more complex than most people south of the border realise. OTOH, if you were a 30-year qualified barrister in Englandshire and came to Edinburgh to try to appear in court to present a case, you’d pretty soon get shown the door. In exactly the same way that A Belgian (or Scottish) Advocate would get shown the (exit) door from the Old Bailey.
For US-ian readers, I think this is broadly similar to the concept of “state rights”. But the different sets of rules were written centuries apart, were part of quite bloody wars, and are still likely to cause major dissent. E.G. if one part of the UK votes to leave Europe, but other parts of the “U”K vote to remain in Europe.
Safe space. That Orwellian term doesn’t make me feel safe.
Orwell would have been amused (or horrified).
Other “safe” doublespeak:
“downsizing” for layoffs, “servicing the target” for bombing. Feel safe now?
+ 1
There are probably a number of astronauts who would be uncomfortable with the idea of “safe” “space”.
“Space” isn’t much more breathable than “water”. Done one ; don’t want to try the other.
“If they have any self-awareness…”
As always, I have to admire the optimism…
Related. An attempt to shut down a speaker in LA.
First some charming chanting as they try to shut dissenters up.
https://youtu.be/CmdYPnePJMQ?t=77
They are chanting “unity of the majority”.
Here is some background.
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26405/
At one point protesters set off a fire alarm to disrupt the event. They blocked people getting in and out of the room. One journalist was assaulted by two of the protesters. A little muscle.
Here is video of him speaking https://youtu.be/1q9I4IRijpU
To me, this image is like some apocalyptic mural.
How amazingly juvenile. He’s not a fascist. He’s not inciting violence. If they don’t agree with him then don’t attend his speech but this mass tantrum session is pathetic example
Emmanuel Goldstein would be proud.
Do I need to reference that? No – for those who need the reference, they wouldn’t read it anyway.
Re LSE When not supporting extremists its student body is churning out “safe spaces” to evacuate brains