We need to talk about the no-platform policy vote

Sheffield Hallam Students' Union President Luke Renwick has put forward a controversial motion to the Union Council Meeting of 7th November. The widely criticised 'No-Platform' policy, in which speakers seen as offensive aren't allowed to speak at the University, has famously been used to curtail freedom of speech in universities.

Why we need freedom of speech

Since their inception, universities have been bastions of open debate and oppositional thought. They are places where we become more politically astute and our opinions are challenged. By being challenged, our opinions are rigorously tested, scrutinised and consequently shaped. Universities should be places where reason determines outcomes, not ability to throw a tantrum.

Free speech ratings at Sheffield Students' Unions

Spiked, a free speech advocacy group, have independently reviewed all the major universities in the UK and their respective unions to assess them for policies which impeach free speech. Here in Sheffield, we didn't do awfully well.

You can't simply censor what you don't agree with

No platform policies are designed to prevent people from expressing their views and are therefore fundamentally opposed to free speech. Zero tolerance policies relating to "fascists" are also dangerous as evidently these days, the word fascist gets branded about to apply to even very moderate right wingers . The zero tolerance policy can therefore be used to oppress right wing opinions without substantiating evidence; just the subjective label of fascist.

Sadly, this represents a recent trend for zealous intolerance and attempts to censor opposing opinions. That trend is testament to a particular breed of predominantly left wing students who seem to believe they have a right to be protected from opinions they disagree with. For an apparently virtuous group, it would appear they have very little appreciation of the the notion of free speech. As hard as it may be for some to accept, freedom of speech also applies to people you don't agree with.

Generation Snowflake

Through contravention of this basic right and principle, Generation Snowflake takes its emergent steps. This label represents a group of people who don’t embrace the broad, opinionated world of university. They choose instead to shut themselves in echo chambers surrounded by people who they largely agree with. In our universities this is often synonymous with the Students' Union. Anyone who dares infiltrate this left-wing fortress with an alternate opinion can often expect to be attacked by its army of ‘activists’.

Ordinarily, I’d let them get on with it. However, Generation Snowflake doesn't stop at refusing to recognise other views. The real issues arise when they start to censor them.

Some simply aren't emotionally mature enough to debate

A sterling example of the emergence of this type of behaviour was displayed last year at my SU. Rather paradoxically, the Debating Society was encouraged not to debate transgender issues, on the basis that someone might get offended. You do not have the right to not be offended. If you can't cope with such contention then arguably you shouldn't be at university.

In a climate of rapidly advancing liberality and general acceptance of new ideas, it is all too easy to forget not everyone will agree with every progression. If you don’t, you are essentially criminalised. This applies to ‘racism’ and criticisms of religions or, even more recently, terrorist organisations.

The moment people are stopped from being able to express views without fear of being investigated for hate speech or ____phobia is the moment free speech has been undermined by oppression and censorship.

This notion extends to fashionable no-platforming policies where speakers with legitimate beliefs are denied a chance to voice their views. The reason is simple – the Union Council don't agree with said opinions.

Germaine Greer, a prominent feminist and speaker, was denied a platform at Cardiff University due to alleged transphobic comments and was treated as if she was some kind of Nazi. To deny even the expression and existence of the alternate view to protect someone’s feelings is not free speech; it is freedom from speech.

They want to control what you read

Such violations of free speech filter down into the more trivial realms of our universities. Many SUs ban the sale of certain papers such as The Sun or Daily Mail as if they somehow encroach on students’ freedoms. If you don't like it, don't buy it. To ban certain media voices because a few people don't like them is every bit as censorious as it is ridiculous.

Generation Snowflake is always very quick to brand any dissent towards a ‘marginalised’ group as bigotry. God forbid you point out flaws in certain Islamic teachings with regards to gender equality or homophobia, or state that you only believe in a certain number of genders. Fact and opinion are not synonymous with hate speech.

Dissent leads to complaints, which could ultimately lead to you being kicked off your course. Genuine, critical arguments are silenced and this stifles debate – the very fabric of academic rigour.

It defeats the point of being at university

If university serves to prepare us for the wider world and to broaden our minds then why are we censoring opinions we don't agree with, creating safe spaces (which exist nowhere else) and denying inconvenient truths? The essence and legitimacy of our universities is at stake and it is all because we bend over to competitively offended students who can’t face their opinions being challenged.

Despite the perpetrators of these atrocities being disproportionally left wing, this isn't a question of political stance. To protect free speech is to uphold the most basic liberties we have. Sadly it appears the free speech of others is sacrificed when it suits the doctrine of a group of narrow minded individuals who really do not represent a kinder, more gentle politics.