The debate over free speech in universities and colleges in
the Western world is a subject that has come to prominence in the last few
years. While, much like American politics, it takes increasingly radical
directions, this debate is still a worthy one to have, as the political future
of this country depends on what kind of people we produce from academic
institutions. Frankly, what I have seen happening in universities over the past
years has been mostly good, and it’s time to dispel the myth created and
perpetuated by the ill-informed that students are turning universities into
fascistic anti-free speech biomes.
This article is partly a rebuttal to an article posted on
Student Voices by Daniel Clark. Clark made many points, raising the issue of
pronouns and no-platforming, so I will attempt to provide my own take on these
issues, while also rebutting the points that were made in that article.
The first issue we should look at is the pronoun issue. The
idea that we should use the pronoun ‘ze’ or ‘hir’ is an extremely controversial
one, with some calling it the next battle for equality while others call it
ridiculous nonsense. Clark appears to reside in the latter camp, while I am in
the former. For too long transgender people have been mocked and bullied for
their sexuality. A study by Manchester metropolitan University found that 73%
of transgender individuals have experienced harassment at school. 47% did not
use public leisure facilities out of fear of harassment and discrimination.
Transgender students are more at risk of having depression and becoming
alcoholics or drug addicts due to their oppression. And it is oppression, by
cultural means rather than by the state or its institutions. So universities
attempting to create an accommodating environment are actually long
overdue. Clark, however, seems to oppose
this. He points the example of Oxford university telling students they *must*
use gender neutral pronouns, which might sound shocking if it had actually
happened. It was the student union that put out leaflets basically saying
“please don’t assume people’s gender, it isn’t nice for trans students”, not
the university saying gendering was banned.
Even then, the Student Union said that there actually was no leaflet
banning gendered pronouns at all and that a campaign to aid transgender rights
had been utterly blown out of proportion. Clark also claimed that misgendering
people is an offence at Oxford University. This is incorrect. Deliberate
misgendering, which is a form of transphobic bullying, is an offence.
Basically, bullying isn’t okay with Oxford University. This was either a rather poor attempt at
scaremongering by Clark or a simple mistake caused by Clark only checking one
source: The Times perhaps didn’t report further on the story, but The
Independent did. Nobody is forcing
intersectional pronouns on anybody-cisgender students are simply being asked to
acknowledge and recognize the rights of transgender students.
Now, on to no-platforming. In Clark’s article, he states
that no-platforming is “disgraceful” and clams that “George Orwell must be
turning in his grave”, because the Orwell thing definitely isn’t a cliché that
has been used in the past by right-wingers trying to defend bigotry when it is
shut down. Also on a side note-why do conservatives invoke Orwell so much when
he was a socialist who fought for an anarchist militia in the Spanish Civil
War? Stop it. Get your own figurehead. Use Ayn Rand or something. But here comes a big statement:
no-platforming is a good thing. Why? Because we cannot allow hatred to flourish
in our society. It is important that bigotry is weeded out. Not every racist
goes around in a wifebeater in a council house shouting the n-word at
immigrants. Some are far more subtle.
People who would intentionally disrupt a community and cause racial
hatred, like Milo Yiannopoulos, should not be allowed to speak when all he does
is sow the seeds of division and bigotry.
Let’s take Yiannnopoulos. This is a man who abuses women, transgender
people and was rightfully banned from Twitter for organizing a racist hate
mob.
Yiannopoulos himself might be joking, as some claim, but the
damage he, his associates and his words cause are real. And it is the right of
student unions to exercise their freedom and ban people like Yiannopoulos if
they so desire. It’s worth remembering that you don’t have an automatic right
to speak at any institution you like, or say anything you like. If I invite you
over to my house to hang out and you turn out to be a monstrous racist, I’m
going to kick you out of my house . If
you’re gaming online and you keep saying the n-word through the mic on a public
game the server admins will probably ban you. The principle must remain the
same in a good society, where people aren’t allowed to try and provoke or
trigger vulnerable people for the sake of a laugh or to be a contrarian
edge-lord. Free speech is something we must uphold, but like democracy, speech
cannot be absolute. Hate speech deserves
condemnation, and no-platforming is just another part of refusing to accept
bigotry in a public space as a part of society in an era where we should be
looking to eradicate hate in all forms.
University students haven’t lost their minds or become
snowflakes. They’re standing against
oppression and bullying, something that we should have been doing a long time
before now and I hope we will continue doing. If the rise of politicians like
Trump and Farage teaches us one thing, let it be to never tolerate hate and
bigotry and to weed it out at the source. Because the fear and terror spread by
these two men alone has been despicable, let alone their supporters.
Universities should be places where the mind broadens, not closes, and by
making transgender students as comfortable as possible and by refusing to
accept bigotry on campus we can achieve that goal.
Free Speech: In Defence of the Students | Gabriel Rutherford
Reviewed by Student Voices
on
23:45
Rating:
No comments:
Share your views here! But read our Comment Policy first, found on the about page.