Author Topic: No platforming in universities  (Read 1929 times)

Pentagathus

  • King of the Wibulnibs
  • Posts: 2704
  • Karma: 20
    • View Profile
    • Awards
No platforming in universities
« on: January 20, 2018, 05:57:42 PM »
Wagwan my good dudes, this topic was brought to my attention again recently thanks to good old anti-semitism (err sorry, anti-Zionism wink wink) on university campuses in the UK. So I thought I'd post a posty post and see what peeps think.

Personally I am not a fan of no-platforming in general, although I do agree with it when it comes to people advocating violence or sexual violence. Obviously if a private venue wants to refuse a platform to whoever they want then fair enough, but when it comes to universities funded largely by public money and with the aim to educate folk I feel it's a lot less than fair. For starters there's the right to free speech, although technically no-platforming doesn't infringe on it as such and this aspect isn't too important to me. My main problem with no-platforming is that it promotes intolerance towards alternative views and stifles debate when one of the major aims of any decent education system (imo) should be to promote the ability to debate and explore alternate views. I know in the popular media there is a trend to show political student groups as being opposed to free debate etc but since I've largely avoided these groups (partly through lack of interest, partly because at first glance at least my university societies do seem to live up to this reputation)  I don't actually know how fair this representation is.
I believe Boris' brother the Jo-man Johnson has suggested that an independent body should have the power to fine universities that it deems to be stifling free speech, which might be reasonable. Although to be fair I do see why universities would be reluctant to host more controversial figures considering the practical issues around security etc.


What do you fine fellows think about it?


(Also was considering expanding into the debate around anti-semitism vs anti-Zionism in UK universities and in general but it's a different topic which I don't know much about personally and I cba to write much more atm, but feel free to post a posty post about it here or in a new topic if thou wish).

Clockwork

  • Charming Prince of Darkness
  • Citizens
    Voting Member
  • Posts: 2055
  • Karma: 17
  • Bitter? Me? portugal no, I think it's hilarious.
  • Awards Came first in the Summer 2020 Exilian forum pub quiz
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: No platforming in universities
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2018, 09:54:57 PM »
Wb penty :)

Yeah I'm usually against no platforming also, with the same general stipulations. I still think Jews are targeted unfairly by UK media especially indie groups and I think some people are too quick to claim anti-zionism when they're being anti-semetic. Also I'm pro-state of israel so hey I'm biased. I don't think unis should be fined. Basically I don't think that the people who decide on who gets a platform would care if the uni was fined or not.


Surely if you really wanted to damage someones image you'd let them speak and just record the lack of audience or the awkward questions they can't answer. Idk.
Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the Comedian is the only thing that makes sense.


Jubal

  • Megadux
    Executive Officer
  • Posts: 35495
  • Karma: 140
  • Awards Awarded for oustanding services to Exilian!
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: No platforming in universities
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2018, 10:51:08 PM »
I feel like anti-semitism in the UK is probably worth a separate topic, so I'll leave people to start that separately if they want to and just respond on the general no-platforming front.

Firstly, regarding free speech - as Penty says, it's not a violation of anyone's rights if they don't get given a platform, including by a university. Universities should decide who to invite based on who will generate interesting and useful debate; I think legal obligations to "balance" views regardless of their content can easily become "my stupidity is as good as your knowledge" which is pretty much the thing we need universities for to avoid. I certainly end up with little sympathy for people who get protested against at a university (a point I'll return to) and then whinge about being "silenced" from their column in a national newspaper. I don't often like no platforming, but I defend the legal right of student unions and universities to do it: they're not simply arms of the state, even if they get funding grants from it, and I don't like the idea of the state interfering in their platform policies.

I think there are tricky issues around platforming, and in general the biggest problem is that it becomes a question of "to platform or not to platform", which a) is completely inadequate for addressing real situations and b) doesn't actually hit the crux of the issue, which is not about platforms but about debate. The real question when it comes to controversial speakers is whether they're coming into an environment where they will actually be open to challenge. It's clearly wrong, in my view, to give anyone in a university context a simple platform to give a speech unchallenged - the whole point of universities is that they are centres of debate. This becomes more important the more controversial and/or more famous the person being received is. If you're going to invite, say, Milo Yianarmadillos to a university (so someone in the "controversial speaker who isn't an academic & won't be giving a lecture"), I think that would have to come with an understanding that a) he's going to get peacefully protested against and has to put up with that, b) he is there primarily to be questioned, not to give self-promotional speeches, and c) he is not allowed to censor any questions and will not receive the precise questions list in advance beyond some general areas. In other words, an environment where the person coming to the university is actually getting their views hammered at and forced to defend them. Same incidentally should go for mainstream politicians. I think the reason no-platforming has gained so much traction is that actually, especially in certain prominent universities, getting invited to speak is treated as an honour - you get to self-promote in front of the future leaders of the country, you get a black tie dinner, you get to put on cards that you spoke at the Oxbridyalevard Union or whatever. That for me defeats the purpose and is a betrayal of what universities should be about. We should be very wary about no-platforming per se, but on the other hand we should get away from asking about platforms and work a lot harder to ensure that universities and student unions get to do their job in these matters.

Now, the other point I think is that "no-platforming" happens less than the media tend to make out. There's a big narrative about "censorious students" that sells newspapers well - in general, I find out about a "censorship" story not because anyone my age has posted about it, but because people of my parent's generation are worriedly sharing articles on Facebook. I think part of this is just a "worrying about the culture of the youth" thing that happens every generation, albeit with a specific twist. The thing is, though, that often these stories aren't all they're cracked up to be. To take a personal example, one "censorship" example featured in a major letter to a national newspaper a few years back, which was signed by a lot of serious journalists and activists and other luminaries, which I had actually gotten to see first hand as it was in Cambridge. What the letter referred to as "no platforming" (in this case of Germaine Greer) consisted of a) the student feminist society organising a separate event, with some different speakers, b) them flyering for the event outside Greer's talk, and c) that's it. Greer turned up, gave her talk to the audience, a lot of people went to the counter-event and it probably got as good a turnout as Greer did and generally got better reviewed afterwards. Digging beneath the surface, this isn't even uncommon - it's borderline disconcerting how often one finds that people claiming to be "censored" are just pissed that someone decided to protest against them.

I'm sure there are elements of student communities, and society in general, that actually want to crack down on alternative views - god knows I've had some (genuine and unpleasant) Twitter abuse from Corbynites over the past year (though mostly older folk rather than students). But I think this is an area that's often *massively* overblown thanks to a particular manufactured narrative, and trying to force people's hands with platforming rules won't help. Instead, the most important thing is to improve the state of actual debate in universities by improving formats and shifting the power-balance so people can get a real and thorough examination of the views of folks who come to speak at their unis.
The duke, the wanderer, the philosopher, the mariner, the warrior, the strategist, the storyteller, the wizard, the wayfarer...