The real problem that universities have with freedom of speech is that they are no good at talking about it, argues Paul Greatrix.

This article was originally published on WonkHE on Wednesday 2 November 2022.

Universities really do have a problem with free speech.

However, it is not the problem that we are frequently accused of, that we stifle it or are politically biased in the free speech that we permit to take place on campus. Rather our problem is that we do not promote free speech anywhere near enough.

This has enabled the powerful view to take hold that somehow universities are against free speech or, at best, are reluctantly tolerant of it and selective in our support. In reality this is very far from the truth as universities are, have always been and I hope always will be, genuine bastions of free speech. Indeed universities are, and always should be, the central places in civil society where free speech enjoys its strongest support.

There is though, we absolutely have to acknowledge, a significant perceptual problem which is in part down to the sector’s reluctance explicitly and loudly to champion free speech.

A quiet life

A recent paper from HEPI proposed a phenomenon described as “quiet no-platforming” whereby those organising university speaker events simply and quietly decide not to proceed because it is all too difficult – perhaps because there would be a big controversy or they fear they would be targeted for issuing an invitation – and suggested that this represented a new challenge for free speech in universities.

There is possibly something in this but I would suggest it is just one of many reasons, most of them entirely innocuous and nothing at all do with any stifling of free speech, why speakers may not end up on a platform. The HEPI paper is based on a fairly narrow survey of debating societies – covering only a small part of the wide range of external speaker activity – and the fact that around 75 per cent of the cases identified are at Oxford or Cambridge does rather cast doubt on the wider applicability of “quiet no-platforming” as a phenomenon.

Nevertheless the HEPI paper does have the merit of at least being based on an actual survey of real activity, albeit narrowly defined. It is genuinely surprising how little insight there has been in the free speech debate from real data and experience of speaker activity (other than in a handful of unrepresentative high profile cases) and how these things work in reality.

I would suggest though that as well as “quiet no-platforming” there is also its counterpart of “noisy platforming”: this is the scenario whereby someone who wants to make a name for themselves on campus or to promote their student society makes it known that they are inviting a big name controversial speaker, precisely in order to stir up a fuss, create a buzz and, if the talk ever actually goes ahead, generate an audience.

It doesn’t happen that often but when it does it is usually less about ensuring an otherwise marginal voice is heard than the organiser trying to make a splash on their own account.

Big names on campus

In the 36 years since the 1986 Act – which was intended to address the core issue of speakers (at that time primarily government ministers) being denied a platform – staff in universities and students’ unions have become used to dealing with these issues. There has been plenty of comment from the armchair culture warriors (which is why we have legislation now going through the Lords) but the reality is that tens of thousands of speaker events happen every year without incident. Such events are part of the routine business of university life with students or staff inviting speakers, be they academic, cultural or political, to speak and debate at meetings and fora of various types. Free speech is a commonplace and organic part of campus life.

While “quiet no-platforming” might be one explanation of why some speeches do not proceed, there could be any one of 101 other reasons why a speaker does not end up speaking. For example, when our enthusiastic society secretary realises they are required to give appropriate notice to the students’ union and/or the university and they do actually have to fill in some paperwork, it can sometimes put them off. Other reasons might be that the speaker has not even accepted the invitation anyway and for a big name there might also be issues about accommodation (will the Britannia or Travelodge be ok? No it won’t, there is barely a high-profile speaker in the land who will turn up if you offer them this), travel, subsistence expenses, or even the expectation of a fee.

Big name speakers are hard to secure at the best of times – booking a date is inherently problematic – the draw of the Oxford Union is always going to be greater than that of a wet Wednesday in Stoke (or Bristol or Liverpool or Middlesborough). Any of these logistical issues can scupper a speech before it has even been advertised and that’s before you get to the formalities around other arrangements such as ticketing, security, health and safety matters and the format of the event.

Security concerns can be a real issue, particularly with controversial speakers. Universities have a responsibility for the safety of speakers and audiences and making the necessary arrangements can be challenging and costly. Many years ago it was not unheard of for universities to use the potential cost of security and police involvement as reasons for events not to go ahead and sometimes even requiring the relevant student society to underwrite costs. While this approach is no more the security challenge remains and, except in the most serious situations of risk, universities will still have to ensure the event proceeds even if there are noisy and difficult to manage demonstrations.

Following the rules

We often hear about the bureaucracy associated with booking a speaker as if this is somehow problematic. However, in reality it is pretty straightforward and thousands of events across universities seem to go ahead without difficulty every year. The reality is then that whilst there may be quite a few reasons why certain speakers do not end up on platforms at universities it is rarely down to the institutions themselves or students’ unions somehow finding ways to prevent it happening. Filling in a form is among the least of the organisational obstacles to getting that big name speaker. Life and logistics are more likely obstacles.

The data demonstrates that very few events are actually cancelled. To be precise, the OfS found that in 2017-18, of 62,094 external speaker event requests in England just 53 were rejected by universities or students’ unions. And the formal returns for 2019-20 showed that only 0.21 per cent of event or speaker requests at English universities were rejected.

Regardless though of the reasons for platforms turning out to be unoccupied universities have to do much better in terms of acting as the genuine champions and most passionate advocates for free speech. Despite our outstanding track record in terms of free speech we seem reluctant to take credit for it or to stress its importance. This is possibly because of the way in which the free speech debate has evolved in recent years but we have duties as the real bastions of free speech. In a civilised society universities are the places where ideas come first not personalities – the places where people debate not with fists or soundbites but with rational arguments.

It is important to be clear about this point, you don’t get to speak at a university just because you want to. As is noted in the University of Nottingham policy on Free Speech and Academic Freedom, the university is not obliged to provide a platform to individuals who have no recognised expertise in a field of academic inquiry nor does it have to provide speaking opportunities to those who wish to promote views that are manifestly at odds with empirically verifiable objective facts. As the policy puts it, the university is not a public square.

Say it loud

Finally as none other than Nick Hillman recently put it:

“It is because universities are so important that they have found themselves at the centre of the storm about wokery and cancel culture and at the heart of the so-called ‘free speech crisis’. Even people who rarely visit a university campus understand that what goes on there matters to the whole of society.”

So, we are going to have suck up the consequences of this new legislation – we will have to make it work (hoping at least the rough edges are removed by their Lordships) and fit it into our existing procedures which we know already provide well for ensuring free speech on campuses. We have a huge amount of experience in this regard. But universities can’t leave the free speech agenda to those who claim it as their own and yet seem to spend most of their time attacking the sector.

Universities do have a problem with free speech then but it is actually primarily about our reluctance to embrace ownership of the issue and allowing the perception to take hold that we are not wholly supportive of it. To challenge this universities have to be louder and bolder in asserting our position as the genuine champions of free speech. We have to get a lot better at shouting about the importance of free speech and our central role in promoting it.