Safe space or free speech?

[Sheilbh]

Inspired by Ed:

Safe space or free speech? The crisis around debate at UK universities
The cancellation of comedian Kate Smurthwaite's Goldsmiths show after protests against her politics is indicative of a wider battle for the nature of student life – should university be a 'safe space' for all, or a place where anything can be debated?
Ian Dunt
Friday 6 February 2015 16.49 GMT

Even by the standards of student politics, it was a mess. Comedian Kate Smurthwaite was booked to do a gig at Goldsmiths, University of London on Monday evening when she noticed online reports of a picket by members of the feminist society. Their objections were not to her show, but her politics. Smurthwaite is a proponent of the Nordic model of sex work, a legal approach that criminalises punters but not sex workers themselves. For some students, that made her "whorephobic" and unfit to do a gig on campus.

"I told the society there might be a protest," Smurthwaite says. "The first thing they said was: 'Oh yeah, we knew.' The feminist society had held a debate about whether or not I should be able to perform."

The society voted 70-30 to allow it, but a minority decided to picket the event anyway. "I should have been happy it was won, but I was just shocked and upset," she says. "There's nothing I've said which is worthy of a debate on that sort of thing." Then the organisers liaised with security and decided the event should be cancelled.

Molly Coddle, a sex worker and campaigner who supported the picket, suggests there is a sense of entitlement in the anger of Smurthwaite's supporters. "They want really controversial speakers to come to campuses, over the heads of students who are hurt by that or disagree with their politics," she says. "It's students who aren't allowed to hold alternate events, or picket, or protest, or ask their university to disinvite the speaker."

Once you dig past the insults and accusations, the Smurthwaite story reveals something troubling about the culture on Britain's campuses. Whatever the precise reasons for the cancellation, the feminist society took a vote to picket someone because of a policy position unrelated to the content of the show itself. This is not like the antifascist "no platform" campaign of the 1980s and 90s. It is much broader and more nebulous. The potential for offence is trumping the right to free speech.

The row comes amid a growing sense of crisis around debate in British universities. In recent months, Oxford University cancelled a debate on abortion because protesters objected to the fact it was being held between two men; the Cambridge Union was asked (but refused) to withdraw its speaking invitation to Germaine Greer because of her views on transgender issues; officials at London Southbank took down a "flying spaghetti monster" poster because it might cause religious offence; UCL banned the Nietzsche Club after it put up posters saying "equality is a false God", and Dundee banned the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children from their freshers' fair. The Sun is banned on dozens of campuses because of Page 3. Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines song has also been banned by many student unions.

"There are two ways of looking at the challenges to free speech on college campuses – quantitative and qualitative – and it's getting worse on both counts," says Joanna Williams of Kent University's Enhancement of Learning and Teaching unit, who has written extensively about politics on campus. "Censorship powers are being used more often and against a wider variety of targets."

Whether they meant to or not, those who cancelled Smurthwaite's gig at Goldsmiths have waded into a row that speaks to a radically changing view of what student life should be about. The show-that-wasn't, by the way, was themed around freedom of speech.

At the heart of the new wave of censorship on British campuses is the "safe space" policy. Its origin can be traced back to US protests against military recruiters on campus in the 70s. From there sprung the no-platform agenda, which then morphed over the last few years into this latest incarnation. The idea behind safe space is that people of all identities are entitled to a tolerant environment to express who they are. It sounds commendable, but the implications are startling.

"No platform for fascists was clear-cut in terms of which groups were being targeted," Williams explains. "It was a particular political persuasion and a clear demand of what they weren't allowed to do. But in recent years, bans have extended out to cover more things – not just fascist groups, but also Ukip. And the nature of what is being banned has also been extended – to certain newspapers, or lads' mags, or student societies. Safe space is open to interpretation. It's all-encompassing."

Smurthwaite, for instance, was told that sex workers were included in the college's safe spaces policy and might be hurt by her presence. An organiser wrote: "I have to send you a passage about our 'safe space' policy outlining kinda what you can or can't say. Because our union is 'for' sex working ... it would probably be best to avoid that area of conversation."

It is hard to find someone who will defend safe spaces on the record. No one from the Goldsmiths feminist society would speak about it, nor would their student union. The president of the National Union of Students – a strong proponent of the policy – would not respond to calls. The best defence of the policy comes from Tim Squirrell, former president of the Cambridge Union.

"Safe space gets a bit of a bad rap," he says. "Most of the people involved in advocating these types of policies don't mind debate; they just they don't want to do so in their homes with strangers.

"Every time you invite someone like Germaine Greer on to campus, or someone who disagrees with the rights of sex workers to do their work, or a racist or a homophobe, you're not endorsing their views, but you're legitimating their views as something that's up for discussion. There's a place for that discussion, but the question of whether it should happen in people's homes is a difficult one. Greer doesn't think trans women are real women. These are not abstract issues. They affect real people.

"I know someone in the debating circuit who used to say to teams: 'If you think your case is offensive, you haven't found the right case to make. You should go back and find another one which doesn't appear prima facie to be offensive. There are ways of debating these things which aren't hurtful."

But according to many of those who work on campus or attend debates in them, safe space has become a direct threat to freedom of speech.

As the sun went down in Oxford on Thursday, balaclava-clad anti-fascist campaigners were attempting to scale the walls of the union to prevent a speech by the French far-right leader Marine Le Pen. Pointing out the gulf between their position and hers, they chanted: "This is free speech - that is a platform!"

It's nothing new, this: the Oxford and Cambridge Union have long been accused of provocation for their choices of speakers. Le Pen herself has spoken at the Cambridge Union as well. And the protesters were distinctly unimpressed. "I think it's bizarre, or just incredibly naive," said second-year student Will Searby, one of those to brave the freezing temperatures to express their anger. "Having one's views broadcast from a platform is not some kind of inalienable right."

Those attending the debate disagreed, putting the blame for any benefit to Le Pen squarely at the feet of those chanting outside. Said Henrique Laitenberger, a history student: "Instead of the Front National leader's views being laid bare, and their dissection at the union being prioritised, Le Pen will return to France yet again vindicated as a martyr of free speech, challenged by an illiberal mob."

Of course, Marine le Pen is a very long way indeed from Kate Smurthwaite. And even for those organising the protest against Le Pen, there is a sense that what was once a no-platform policy limited to fascists is now being used more widely.

"Generally I'm for a very narrow definition of no-platform," Weyman Bennett, joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism, says. "At the moment there's a danger of it being used against people you just don't like. There's a very serious argument that what people are doing now is banning people."

Julie Bindel knows the implications of safe spaces better than most. Her views on transgenderism, sex work and the Muslim veil have led to her being called transphobic, whorephobic and Islamophobic. She now finds it increasingly difficult to get on to college campuses at all.

"I've a quite high public profile in this world, so when I'm invited to an event, it'll draw interest in the crowd," she says. "The organiser or the board of the university or the venue will be lobbied until they can take no more of it. These idiots sit there behind their keyboards and do this."

She adds: "I was born into a very impoverished, working-class background. I never had a safe space in which to air my views. Before this whole lunacy started, I was constantly shouted at if I talked about violence against women or prostitution. We live in a toxic anti-feminist world. There's no such thing as a safe space. This is the work of privileged, moneyed, over-educated, pampered, middle-class liberal idiots."

Safe spaces is a direct corollary of the rise of identity politics. As the essentially economic argument between right and left died down, it was replaced by a culture war in which gender, sexuality and race were at the heart of the discussion. This was a much more personal form of politics. Suddenly, arguments on issues such as prostitution and transgenderism were being branded hate speech, and the identity of the person speaking became as important as the words they were saying. This was why the Oxford debate on abortion was cancelled – because both participants were men. It is also why Coddle objects so strongly to the way Smurthwaite and others debate sex work – because sex workers themselves are often not represented in the discussion.

Why were universities so ready to give in to demands for a restricted right of debate? The reasons are economic as well as political. Pickets and online campaigns often lead to the cancellation of events because of universities' fears of litigation, even on the basis of emotional harm. And where litigation is not a concern, there is a fear that protests might create a reputational risk.

"Universities don't want to be associated with views which aren't part of the moral consensus," Dennis Hayes, professor of education at the University of Derby and founder of Academics for Academic Freedom, says. "It's a very conservative climate. Universities used to be very conservative and now they've gone back to being conservative."

And then there's the cost. "When the union had a controversial speaker who was going to spark a protest, we had to spend between £3,000 and £5,000," Squirrell says. "You have to secure the building, get the requisite number of security guards and do bag searches." Controversy may be good publicity, but it isn't cheap.

This institutional caution is being reinforced by the new commercial relationship between students and universities. The introduction of tuition fees has meant that students increasingly see themselves as customers who are entitled to comfort while on campus.

"You develop a cosy relationship with the students," Hayes says. "You don't say anything controversial. They don't say anything controversial. And that's very nice. Everyone seems very concerned by safe space, so it's presented in a positive way. It's not presented as censorship. It's done compassionately. That broadly is the ethos."

For Hayes, the new culture is part of a therapeutic worldview that sees students as vulnerable young people.

"It's a far cry from the 60s, when students challenged lecturers for being bourgeois," he says. "When students used to first come to university for freshers' week, the first thing they saw were people arguing and debating. Now freshers' fairs have been stripped of politics. They're mostly about volunteering. When first-years come in, they're still quite feisty. But by the time they get to third year they've absorbed the culture."

Safe space is not all bad. It stands as a forceful counterpoint to another troubling trend in student life, in which jokes about rape and racist fancy-dress costumes are almost a badge of honour. To its credit, it is concerned with taking care of the most vulnerable people in a community. As Coddle puts it, they are "interrogating codes of conduct" and asking searching questions about who has a right to speak. Once that conversation is out in the open, it is easier to see how white, male voices are given precedence over everyone else.

But the policy is also dangerously vague, and speaks to a sense of emotional entitlement that is at odds with the reality of democratic society. The only way to properly abide by it would be to strip universities of all potentially offensive debate. There is a danger it will create a generation of university students who are unable to have their ideas challenged without invoking "offence".

There are already signs of it seeping into national political debate. Last August a debate on transgender identity on Newsnight fell apart when the programme was accused of questioning "whether or not trans people have a right to exist", something it plainly was not doing. Last September, activists blocked the road to the Barbican to protest about Exhibit B, a theatre-performance-come-art-installation featuring black actors in chains. The Barbican cancelled the event.

For Smurthwaite, the next obstacle is the Leicester comedy festival, where online campaigners are already trying to have her banned. For the rest of us, the danger is more distant, but just as troubling.

Additional reporting by Areeb Ullah

[Crazy_Ivan80]

antifascism is the new fascism it seems. and it seems they'll succeed where fascists never did.

[Sheilbh]

antifascism is the new fascism it seems. and it seems they'll succeed where fascists never did.

Conquering Russia?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

antifascism is the new fascism it seems. and it seems they'll succeed where fascists never did.

Conquering Russia?

nope, shutting everyone up

[Ed Anger]

I'm an inspiration! 

The cure for this is beatings. Good Brownshirt beatings.

[Valmy]

First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Nazi.

[The Larch]

If you actually read the article, it points out in a totally different direction.

"Generally I'm for a very narrow definition of no-platform," Weyman Bennett, joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism, says. "At the moment there's a danger of it being used against people you just don't like. There's a very serious argument that what people are doing now is banning people."

"This is the work of privileged, moneyed, over-educated, pampered, middle-class liberal idiots."

Safe spaces is a direct corollary of the rise of identity politics. As the essentially economic argument between right and left died down, it was replaced by a culture war in which gender, sexuality and race were at the heart of the discussion.

Why were universities so ready to give in to demands for a restricted right of debate? The reasons are economic as well as political. Pickets and online campaigns often lead to the cancellation of events because of universities' fears of litigation, even on the basis of emotional harm. And where litigation is not a concern, there is a fear that protests might create a reputational risk.

"Universities don't want to be associated with views which aren't part of the moral consensus," Dennis Hayes, professor of education at the University of Derby and founder of Academics for Academic Freedom, says. "It's a very conservative climate. Universities used to be very conservative and now they've gone back to being conservative."

And then there's the cost. "When the union had a controversial speaker who was going to spark a protest, we had to spend between £3,000 and £5,000," Squirrell says. "You have to secure the building, get the requisite number of security guards and do bag searches." Controversy may be good publicity, but it isn't cheap.

This institutional caution is being reinforced by the new commercial relationship between students and universities. The introduction of tuition fees has meant that students increasingly see themselves as customers who are entitled to comfort while on campus.

For the record, this seems completely alien to me, maybe I'm too old school for this kind of stuff or I'm not sufficiently exposed to this new kind of identity politics, or it's not a thing over here, but it seems like the work of a bunch of busybodies with nothing better to do.

[Martinus]

First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Nazi.

I think there are two issues here.

One is whether we can/should restrict speech that some find offensive or objectionable - so racist, homophobic, blasphemous etc. So far I don't think there has ever been a society that has been fully free in that regard but that does not mean we should not try.

The other issue is more specific - should we restrict speech that advocates a form of government (especially brought in by force but not just that) that would remove freedom of speech. This is much more complex imo.

[Martinus]

"Universities don't want to be associated with views which aren't part of the moral consensus," Dennis Hayes, professor of education at the University of Derby and founder of Academics for Academic Freedom, says. "It's a very conservative climate. Universities used to be very conservative and now they've gone back to being conservative."

I wonder if they wanted to say they "used to be very liberal". It would almost certainly make more sense.

[Martinus]

By the way, didn't someone posted a similar article a few weeks ago? I personally find it puzzling that universities - which generally have always been associated with unorthodox views - believe that "safe space" is something that is in any way desirable. It should be the opposite.

[Valmy]

For the record, this seems completely alien to me, maybe I'm too old school for this kind of stuff or I'm not sufficiently exposed to this new kind of identity politics, or it's not a thing over here, but it seems like the work of a bunch of busybodies with nothing better to do.

This is the American Conservative's stereotype of intolerant left wing monsters.  This is the stereotype of places like Cal Berkeley.  I have a hard time believing this sort of thing is really universal across British Universities.  I do like how it is being blamed on the Middle Class.  Sometimes you get the impression that to the British every atrocity, left right and center, is in the hands of middling income earners.  'You are not in poverty nor are you amongst the elite?  MONSTER!!!'

[Tamas]

For the record, this seems completely alien to me, maybe I'm too old school for this kind of stuff or I'm not sufficiently exposed to this new kind of identity politics, or it's not a thing over here, but it seems like the work of a bunch of busybodies with nothing better to do.

I am feeling the same way, but I readily admit ignorance on these matters.

But I liked the part in the article about this just being universities going back to being conservative.
Leftist ideas, which were very important in braking a bunch of nasty habits of old, has been accepted as mainstream for so long now, that I consider it perfectly valid to call them as conservative ideas, at least in luckier nations.

And of course the old basic versions of these ideas often had to be forcefully pushed to overcome said old habits, so there is less opposition (yet) to those who are silencing people in the name of equality and tolerance.

Plus, I think societies just need sacred cows.

[Tamas]

For the record, this seems completely alien to me, maybe I'm too old school for this kind of stuff or I'm not sufficiently exposed to this new kind of identity politics, or it's not a thing over here, but it seems like the work of a bunch of busybodies with nothing better to do.

This is the American Conservative's stereotype of intolerant left wing monsters.  This is the stereotype of places like Cal Berkeley.  I have a hard time believing this sort of thing is really universal across British Universities.  I do like how it is being blamed on the Middle Class.  Sometimes you get the impression that to the British every atrocity, left right and center, is in the hands of middling income earners.  'You are not in poverty nor are you amongst the elite?  MONSTER!!!'

There at least seems to be a weird fascination here with poverty. Like how the BBC was describing the Soho as a historically crime infested den of filth, and then progressed to crying over soon losing it to the rule of law.

[Valmy]

I am more supportive of the idea that idiots need to be allowed to speak their bad ideas as loudly as possible, as publicly as possible.  Bad ideas thrive much better in the shadows where they cannot be challenged or exposed for how stupid they are.

[Martinus]

I am more supportive of the idea that idiots need to be allowed to speak their bad ideas as loudly as possible, as publicly as possible.  Bad ideas thrive much better in the shadows where they cannot be challenged or exposed for how stupid they are.

However, for this to work, you need to have a strong state, capable of enforcing citizens' rights. Without that, free speech can very quickly deteriorate into a mob rule, where those who have numbers and/or are loud enough can intimidate the rest, irrespective of laws.