Labour’s Free Speech Betrayal

English universities have not always been the epitome of free speech that they are supposed to be. It was only in 1871 that Roman Catholics, Protestant nonconformists and atheists were able to attend and hold teaching posts at university with the passing of the Universities Test Act. However, that is nearly 160 years ago, and universities have developed into institutions that have achieved great intellectual progress because of the freedom that academics and students have to challenge orthodoxies. Universities’ free speech environments have also encouraged the maturation of young undergraduates who have learned that not everyone will agree with them, and that debate can be robust without becoming personal. But this legacy, which has been under threat for some time, is on the verge of being destroyed, or cancelled as people are now wont to say.

One of the more useful legislative measures the Tories came up with was the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which became law in May of this year. The law was passed because of the way that identity politics, Critical Race Theory and radical transgenderism have taken hold of university culture; curtailing free speech through the bullying and expulsion of staff and student dissenters, alongside the no-platforming of speakers critical of these dogmas. The Act has not yet come fully into force, but under its provisions, registered higher education providers in England will be required to protect and promote freedom of speech and academic freedom. Student unions which have been the most radical in restricting free speech will also be required to take reasonable steps to defend it. Universities and unions which fail to adhere to these rules may be fined. As the new Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom Professor Arif Ahmed has stated, free speech and free academic inquiry are at the heart of why universities exist, and they are foundational to Western values. However, it looks like none of this is now going ahead as the Education Minister Bridget Philipson has halted the implementation of the Act, and is considering repealing it for she believes it will fail to protect minority groups from hate speech.

But there is already enough legislation that protects minorities. According to Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, everyone has the right to free expression. Where the law limits and prohibits freedom of speech, it does so in ways that are consistent with and necessary in a democracy. These legitimate restrictions include what is provided for by the Public Order Act (1986) which criminalises words and conduct that cause or probably will cause another person to feel harassed and threatened, incite religious and racial hatred, homophobia and terrorism. 2010’s Equality Act outlaws discrimination against anyone on the grounds of age, gender reassignment, marital status, pregnancy, disability, ethnicity, religious belief and no religious belief, sex and sexual orientation. The Statute Book therefore basically distinguishes between a reasonable and peaceful expression of opinion and the expression of an opinion that is designed to harm. The problem is that many academics, administrators and students deem lawful criticism to be hateful. We are living not so much in the plastic age, but the sensitive age.

Without the Higher Education Act, universities will continue to indulge the sort of nonsense that was perpetrated at a seminar at Cambridge’s Churchill College in 2021. When discussing Winston Churchill after whom the College is named, students denounced him for running the British Empire because it was more evil than the Nazi regime. No voice of dissent was heard. Free speech advocates have no problem with people making untrue claims such as this if those same people recognise the right of others to criticise them. But critical race theorists accept no critique of their views. Theirs is a sacred moral crusade, and anyone who opposes them is denounced as a racist with all the professional and personal ramifications that may ensue.

Universities will also continue to be places where radical student activists disrupt the speeches of speakers they deem ‘harmful’ by hammering on windows and setting off fire alarms. They will continue to be places too where administrators are forced to disinvite speakers regarded as especially controversial, because their safety incurs a security cost that is too great for the university or the speaker to incur.

However, not all is doom and gloom. It is important to recognise those institutions where free speech is defended. In November 2021, Tzipi Hotovely, the Israeli ambassador to Britain, gave a speech at an event run by the students’ Debating Society at the London School of Economics. (Yes, you read that right.) After she left the venue, protestors rushed at her and bellowed in her face. A spokesman for the LSE condemned this behaviour and after affirming that free speech is a core value of the School, warned that any student protestor found guilty of threatening behaviour would be disciplined.

The question now is this: if the lefties at the LSE can take a stand for freedom of speech and for the freedom of speech of a representative of Israel, the left’s bugbear, why cannot Starmer and Co do the same?

Peter Harris is the author of two books, The Rage Against the Light: Why Christopher Hitchens Was Wrong (2019) and Do You Believe It? A Guide to a Reasonable Christian Faith (2020).

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!

Please follow and like us: