Snowflake unis to be sued over censorship
UNIVERSITIES could face legal action if they allow student zealots to ban speakers from campuses because they dislike their views.
The Equalities and Human Rights Commission is drawing up tough guidance telling university bosses to crack down on undergraduates who restrict free speech.
It is understood the commission will consider backing banned speakers if they sue vicechancellors for allowing activists to bar them from addressing student unions or bodies.
Rebecca Hilsenrath, the commission’s chief executive, said the clampdown was needed to combat a ‘growing culture’ of easily offended ‘snowflake’ students stifling open debate.
Curbs on free speech on campuses would create ‘a generation of students who can’t challenge opinions or think for themselves’, she claimed. The move comes after:
High-profile figures including feminist Germaine Greer and gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell faced attempts to ‘no-platform’ them – the term used when students formally bar speakers or withdraw their invitations after protests against their views.
Oxford undergraduates demanded a statue of Cecil Rhodes be removed because of his imperialism, and Professor Nigel Biggar was pilloried for saying the Empire was not all bad.
Universities introduced ‘trigger warnings’ and ‘safe spaces’ to shield over-sensitive students from views and language they might find upsetting, and student unions have even banned the wearing of sombreros as ‘racist’.
The commission, set up to police the previous Labour Government’s Equalities Act 2006, will tell universities they are legally obliged to uphold freedom of expression that does not promote extremism or ‘hate speech’.
A survey last year found that free speech had been restricted at more than 90 per cent of British universities, with speakers barred from events at more than 20 colleges in 2016.
Miss Hilsenrath said: ‘Universities are an ideal space for people to formulate, express, defend and hone their theories about the world.
‘But if these theories are to be developed into valid arguments, they need to be appropriately challenged. By restricting honest, constructive and open debates about subjects which others may find difficult or uncomfortable to digest, universities risk stifling future generations and allowing unpleasant theories to spread.’