Give universities blacklist of speakers, says professor

‘If there are people who are not allowed to speak at university, the honest way to deal with it is to have a list’

AN official blacklist of extremist speakers should be given to universities to cut fears of breaking the law, says the vice-chancellor of a university “named and shamed” by David Cameron for hosting controversial guests.

Kingston University was one of four highlighted by the Prime Minister last year for having had the most events, including a visit by Moazzam Begg, a Guantanamo detainee who had terror charges against him dropped.

But Prof Julius Weinberg, Kingston’s vice-chancellor, says the legal duty imposed on academics to spot radicalisation has been “counterproductive” as those who fear being called a “terrorist” either self-censor or argue ideas away from platforms where unpalatable ideas can be challenged.

Lecturers have claimed that students have been afraid to ask questions in chemistry lessons because they fear being accused of bomb plots.

Prof Weinberg believes clear guidelines on campus visitors would reduce “informal censorship” and the “hassle” universities now face. Vice-chancellors have been so nervous about breaking the law they banned Mr Begg from speaking at their sites, he revealed.

He wrote to the Home Office asking for clarification but says he did not receive a reply. It is understood ministers are reluctant to back the plans as they feel it is up to academics to decide who they invite, provided extreme views are challenged.

Prof Weinberg said at the University and College Union conference in Liverpool: “If the Government thinks that there are people who should not be allowed to speak at university, then the honest way to deal with it is to have an open and formal list of proscribed individuals.” He said that there should also be an open appeals system.

The likely candidates for the list would be people who have been known to make “inflammatory statements” or who have put others’ safety at risk.

Prof Weinberg added: “Presumably those that are concerned about an individual – say, the security services – would propose to whoever is responsible for the list that ‘we think that this individual poses a threat if they are allowed to speak and these are the grounds’.

“You wouldn’t have what you have now which is informal censorship. What we have is informal pressure being put on universities saying these people are undesirable with no grounds to knowing what criteria are for making that judgment. It’s just a hassle.”