I‘ve written a piece for the Critic this morning on Bridget Phillipson’s decision to sabotage the Freedom of Speech Act on Friday, which is free to read. Here’s an extract from the beginning:
In justifying this act of vandalism, the Education Secretary said the legislation would have imposed a “burdensome” new duty on universities to uphold free speech, trumping their obligations to protect the “safety and well-being of minority groups”.
When I read that I thought, “If only!” I don’t want to endanger the “safety” of minority students, obviously, but we all know what “safety” means in this context: psychological safety – as in “safe spaces” – rather than physical safety. When the Free Speech Union – an advocacy group I run – was involved in producing an early draft of the legislation, along with about a dozen dissident academics, we were acutely conscious of the way “safety” and “well-being” had been weaponised by woke activists to stifle academic freedom and free speech and hoped a change in the law would help universities to refocus on their core purpose.
But as that draft became a bill, and as that bill wended its way through parliament, it was significantly watered down until the new free speech duties were virtually indistinguishable from those already imposed on universities by the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Far from forcing universities – and only English universities, mind you – to prioritise academic freedom and free speech over their countervailing legal obligations, such as the need to comply with counterterrorism legislation and to protect students from harassment, it only asked them to uphold free speech “within the law”. Exactly what that meant was unclear, given that universities are faced with a morass of competing legal requirements – something the Russell Group complained about.
Phillipson was keen to create the impression that she wanted to “protect” Jewish students from feeling unsafe and briefed the Times that the new Act would have made it harder for universities to deny a platform to Holocaust deniers. But that’s not true, something the Free Speech Union pointed out whenever this canard was repeated during the parliamentary debates.
The new free speech duties in the Act are subordinate to those set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and, as the European Court has made clear, Holocaust denial is not protected by Article 10. Moreover, the Act would only have required universities to take “reasonably practicable steps” to secure freedom of speech and it’s unlikely that any court in the land would decide that that included providing a platform to people touting malicious, intellectually meritless conspiracy theories.
Personally, I think Holocaust deniers should be free to set out their crackpot theories at universities so they can be comprehensively rebutted with evidence and reason, but that’s not something this Act would have made possible.
And this is how it ends:
I have to confess to some grudging admiration for Phillipson. In one stroke, she has been far bolder than any of her Tory predecessors in the last 10 years. I detest her ideology and believe that doing nothing to counter the wave of intolerance sweeping our universities means they will soon lose their “world class” status. But, by God, she’s a far more brutal political combatant than the enfeebled Tories. If you want to win the culture war, Phillipson has shown us how to do it.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.