Only days before it was due to come into force, the education secretary said she had decided to “stop further commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, in order to consider options, including its repeal”.
Bridget Phillipson also announced major changes to the work of the higher education regulator in England, the Office for Students (OfS), in order to prioritise financial stability in the sector, as many universities struggle in the face of a mounting financial crisis.
The legislation, which faced bitter opposition from the point of its inception, required universities and student unions to take “reasonable steps” to promote free speech, or face sanctions by the regulator including possible fines.
Phillipson said the legislation was not fit for purpose and risked imposing heavy burdens on institutions. “For too long, universities have been a political battlefield and treated with contempt, rather than as a public good, distracting people from the core issues they face.”
She said the government remained “absolutely committed” to freedom of speech and academic freedom, adding: “This legislation could expose students to harm and appalling hate speech on campuses.
“That is why I have quickly ordered this legislation to be stopped so that we can take a view on next steps and protect everyone’s best interests, working closely with a refocussed OfS.”
Phillipson’s decision was welcomed by many in the sector who disputed the previous government’s narrative of a freedom of speech crisis in universities, and its claims that “cancel culture” and “no platforming” were undermining academic freedom. In sharp contrast to Tory claims, a survey of students by the OfS last year found nearly nine in 10 students in England felt free to express their opinions and beliefs.
The education secretary’s announcement coincided with the publication of an independent review of the OfS that concluded the regulator must reduce its strategic objectives to focus on monitoring financial sustainability in the sector, while also ensuring quality, protecting public money and regulating in the interests of students.
The lead reviewer, Sir David Behan, who was formerly the head of the Care Quality Commission, was also confirmed as the new interim chair of the OfS after the departure earlier this month of James Wharton, a former Conservative MP who ran Boris Johnson’s Tory leadership campaign in 2019.
She said the government remained “absolutely committed” to freedom of speech and academic freedom, adding: “This legislation could expose students to harm and appalling hate speech on campuses.
Complete tautology. It is not in a students interest to be protected from the world. Not in a university.
This may not have been the correct instrument, but universities shouldn’t be scared of debating the less acceptable viewpoints in society. Understanding why, for example, Trump or Farage, gets traction with a segment of society means you need to listen to that segment. If we isolate our best and brightest from it we will never solve the problems.
I’m choosing to interpret this in good faith.
Best to start here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45447938
But ultimately the Tories bill had nothing to do with protecting free speech. It’s purpose was simply to give unpopular, right wing speakers a universal defense to enforce themselves on universities, and to continue the perverse idea that a party who had already been in power for 8 years was somehow being persecuted and oppressed.
Before this bill, Universities could still book anyone they want, and equally sections of the students can choose to protest against the speaker. The organisers could choose whether to ignore the protest, or otherwise. If they decided to remove the speaker - for example, because of past comments unknown to the organiser at the time - that’s their choice.
No organisation is required to give anyone a platform, and any invitation can be revoked.
That’s how it is, and how it should be.
Yeah, I find it strange that universities should need a freedom of speech law specifically for them if there is already freedom of speech everywhere.
When the conservatives talk about freedom of speech they mean the freedom to say what they want and for everyone else to have to just take it.
The freedom of speech that we enjoy everywhere else has nothing to do with them. They often like to conflate “freedom of speech” with “freedom from responsibility”.
Well said
Yeah, there’s no freedom to talk back in that bill.
When the conservatives talk about freedom of speech they mean the freedom to say what they want and for everyone else to have to just take it.
Uh, yes. Conservatives have a right to their values and views, they have a right to express them, and you have no right to prevent them or to threaten them with violence for doing so.
Funnily enough, everyone has a right to free speech, not just people you agree with.
Oh don’t be a disingenuous arse.
The conservatives are already protected by free speech laws, didn’t need to introduce new ones that favor them and allow them to say hurtful things and get away with it. If they want to say awful things on their own platforms, then that’s their prerogative, but the universities are under no requirement to give them a platform.
Oh no, not “saying hurtful things”! How terrible! However will we cope with people “saying hurtful things”?
How about actually addressing the comment I made rather than making supercilious remarks?
They don’t need a new special law they’re already is a general purpose law that is working perfectly. The conservatives don’t like the way it currently works because the way it currently works means they face backlash from their comments. That’s their problem though.
It’s also true that you have no obligation to invite them, just because they feel left out.
Everyone else has a right to tell them (and you) they’re wrong. Deal with it, snowflake
You: We’re just telling him we disagree with his political views!
Also you:
Do I have to use milkshake or can I use something more… permanent?
Do you make a habit of going around making threats of violence against public political figures?
When they’re fascists I have no qualms about doing so, especially when they’re entirely theoretical and could never happen anyway because Farrage is too much of a coward to eve risk going near members of the public who don’t like him
“Freedom of Speech” is an Orwellian title. The real intent of the legislation was to attack academic freedom. For example, a climate conference could be forced to provide a platform to oil-company shills, and in principle, a discussion on astronomy could be required to bring in some flat-earthers.
Ah, so paving the way to create a sort of ‘false centre’ or whatever its called
You don’t have to treat ideas as valid just because they exist. Study them, sure, but students don’t owe you a debate on whether women should have rights or black people are inherently criminal. There is no reason to expose them to such hate just you can say it’s been fairly debated like all opinions are equal.
If you’re interested in self defence you might go to a martial arts class. In that class you’ll sometimes play the role of the attacker and sometimes the defender. Trouble is, no one in that class is a real attacker. Everybody in that class is being taught to play that role in the same way. The self defence that you’re all learning works against the attacks in the class, but does it work against someone who hasn’t been taught to attack in a certain way?
A big part of the rise of the right currently is that the left has been insulating itself from real challenges, and now can’t argue effectively for what it believes is right. It can preach to the choir but not convince others. IMHO it should win confrontation easily, but fails with the general public.
I know they’re both called classes, but martial arts and higher education aren’t remotely comparable in their content or methods. Also you seem to be arguing against yourself by saying martial arts classes (or debate clubs) won’t help you in a real fight (or argument).
This is exactly why I say ideas don’t have to be treated as valid because they exist - your ideas exist but are just a mess of half formed, contradictory assumptions. The only reason to show your ideas at all is as a demonstration of really terrrible ones, and nobody needs to be forced to defend them to prove their lack of validity.I’m aware that your martial-arts example is just a debating point, but real martial artists are aware of the limitations of “role-playing” training, and over the decades have developed different methods to make things more realistic. There’s always a tension between “train like you fight” and “don’t train in a way that injures your students too much.”
Also, ultimately there are only so many ways one person can physically attack another, and untrained attackers will end up trying the same things as trained ones, only perhaps more chaotically. Sometimes something a trained attacker would regard as too risky might lead to a lucky hit.
Back to your analogy: the left is not required to tie its hands behind its back just because the right doesn’t feel that enough punches are connecting. One feature of the marketplace of ideas is that sometimes, nobody wants to buy what you’re selling. Forced platforming is an oppressive quota system and a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
I find it interesting are ascribing to me wanting to promote right wing speakers. My aim is to break the bubble that people construct for themselves so that they can better argue against the ideas of the right.
My martial arts analogy was to say that if you are always imagining how your opponent will act, you will always lose when you come to fight a real opponent. I don’t believe the left is equipping our youth with the right skills to win political arguments because they forever strawman the views of people who vote that way.
You don’t have to treat ideas as valid just because they exist.
An idea is valid as an idea if it exists. The idea of going to the moon to get cheese is valid, it may not be a good idea, but it’s still an idea.
It’s an idea that magic exists. It’s just not a reality.
But there’s no point me debating whether the moon is made of cheese, because it isn’t. You can debate ideas all along but at the end of the day there is a reality out there and it is worth acknowledging that fact.
We don’t have to consider every philosophy if the philosophy we are considering is absurd.
They’re trying to force us into a post-truth world where all positions are treated as equally valid-- a sort of worse-than-both-sides Mexican standoff to keep everyone distracted while the looting continues.
Not sure why you’d interpret validity as applying to the concept of it being an idea rather than the idea’s relation to reality.
If you think that forcing students to give a platform to the EDL is going to improve civil discourse, perhaps you need to think that through a bit more. The legislation was a troll’s charter. It was never about free speech, it was about the ruling party controlling discourse within the universities.
