Free Speech and Our Censorious Youth

“I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It” is a quotation of dubious origin, but whose sentiments I tend to agree with[1]. I don’t actually remember learning about the values of our free Western democracy at school, but, as soon as I could grasp abstract concepts, I recall being grateful that I was growing up in a country which protected free speech and promoted a free press. I was therefore disturbed to read on the front page of this Monday’s Times that research by the Policy Exchange think tank had found that fewer than half of university students consistently support freedom of speech, while around 40% favour censorship in the form of ‘no-platforming’ speakers who hold controversial views. Is this really what we want as we seek to enable our young people to function as independently-minded, discerning thinkers?

Freedom of speech is something that I would wish us to defend to the hilt, not least in education because it ensures that young people are exposed to opposing perspectives on issues. I have written previously in my blog about my regrets that social media algorithms merely feed us opinion that concurs with our own, increasingly turning our news consumption into an echo chamber. This emphasises that we need to make a conscious decision to inform ourselves fully of the key issues at play in our society, such as climate change or Brexit, because we cannot realistically expect our technologies to provide impartiality.

The Policy Exchange report referred to a ‘culture of conformity’ that makes undergraduates too intimidated to espouse unpopular views on campus. How regrettable! We want young people to think independently, and to have the confidence to be their true selves. Of course, freedom of speech is no excuse for bigotry and intolerance, but there is a clear difference between divergence of intelligent opinion on the other hand and hate speech on the other. What’s also interesting is that the same philosophies that are shutting down debate in 2019 are also causing students to react vehemently against the history of their institutions. I’m thinking particularly about attempts to remove a statue at Oxford of Cecil Rhodes.

Rhodes was one of Oxford University’s greatest philanthropists, but it is undoubtedly true that he was also an ardent believer in imperialism and an architect of apartheid in South Africa. However, I think we should we wary of using contemporary values to judge the actions of figures from history. As we know, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and few of our heroes of yesteryear would emerge unscathed it we were to scrutinise their words and deeds through the filter of Twenty-First Century standards. I am sure that future generations will see us as equally unenlightened – perhaps for paying women less than men to do the same job?

I’m not quite sure why the climate of censorship at universities has turned so dramatically in recent times. When I was a student, I felt that I was part of an institution that would defend the principles of our Western liberal education to the death. I don’t see the current tendencies as a deliberate attempt to pervert the values that previous generations fought so hard to gain. Perhaps instead, they have come about from a surfeit of empathy for those who might be offended by controversial opinions. If so, I feel that student leaders are mistaken when they ban Germaine Greer for her allegedly transphobic views (44% of students questioned in the research felt that Cardiff University should have prevented her from speaking). Surely, if you know in advance that Ms Greer’s views will so offend you that they will seriously affect your wellbeing, you should decide not to attend? The attraction of some of this country’s best speakers is that they are controversial and that they challenge our beliefs. Let’s listen to what they have to say, and use our reason to refute their views if we find them misguided.

[1] Until recently, I believed it to have been said by Voltaire, but it seems that the words were actually chosen by his biographer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall, to summarise his viewpoint.