Oxford University in row over new free speech rules

Ex-Stonewall chief mounts ‘sinister’ move to rewrite principles governing race and gender discussions

THE former Stonewall chief and a Rhodes Must Fall leader aim to rewrite Oxford University’s free speech principles, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.

Five Oxford colleges have grouped to create a “framework” to “effectively and respectfully tackle difficult discussions” on issues such as race and gender.

The “Oxford Free Speech Forum” has been convened just as the Government prepares to pass legislation to stamp out censorship on campuses.

David Isaac, the provost of Worcester College and former leader of the controversial LGBT charity, is chairing the forum and in the inaugural meeting took an apparent swipe at the Free Speech Bill, saying that rules did not need to be “imposed” on universities.

Mr Isaac, who was also chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission ( EHRC), was recently embroiled in a row over the cancellation of a Christian conference. Last night campaigners questioned whether he was an appropriate person to decide the rules, while students said Oxford should not “proscribe” free speech.

Simukai Chigudu, who co-founded Rhodes Must Fall at Oxford, used the forum to suggest that free speech arguments are abused to “preserve existing power structures” and prevent expression of issues surrounding race.

The forum – which also includes Brasenose, Somerville, Magdalen and Mansfield colleges – has held two meetings and aims to offer free speech guidance across the university this autumn.

At the first meeting, Mr Isaac said that they were going to attempt to “create the principles of the framework by which we can deliver on Oxford and hopefully other universities’ commitments to deliver free speech”.

In a recording leaked to this newspaper, he can be heard telling attendees that he did not “recognise” the description of “Left-leaning” universities as places where people are no-platformed and difficult discussions avoided.

“I don’t believe that freedom of speech needs to be imposed upon universities,” he added in apparent reference to the Government’s crackdown on censorship in academia.

During Mr Isaac’s time at EHRC, the watchdog released guidance which he said showed speech “should only be limited where there are genuine safety concerns or it constitutes unlawful behaviour”.

But upon taking his role at Worcester, he was criticised for apologising to students for “distress” caused by hosting a Christian Concern camp and cancelling a booking for this year.

The college later admitted that it “misled” students over the event, saying it was committed “to the right to freedom of speech”.

The Oxford forum heard from Mr Chigudu, who helped launch a campaign to topple the Rhodes statue in 2015, during a meeting in March.

The associate professor of African politics at St Antony’s College told around 100 attendees that questions concerning free speech can be “Janusfaced” and “not always a sincere expression of trying to expand thoughtful consideration… and can often act to preserve existing power structures”.

In recordings heard by this newspaper, he claimed that “Britain outsourced its reckoning with race to the colonies”, meaning it could “turn a blind eye to it for political and historical reasons”.

Other speakers in attendance were Raj Desai, a barrister at Matrix Chambers, Prof Hélène Landemore, a political scientist at Yale, and Prof David Ruebain, from Sussex University.

An Oxford student who attended the forums called them “sinister” and “backwards”, adding: “This project has not been created transparently or democratically. I am greatly concerned by any efforts to moderate free speech. ‘Guidance’ is a by-word for restrictions, even if unintended.”

Toby Young, of the Free Speech Union, asked: “Why is an ex-chair of Stonewall who banned a Christian group at the behest of student activists convening a forum on free speech? That’s like asking Jack the Ripper to chair a forum on women’s safety.”

Last night, Oxford University declined to confirm whether the voluntary new guidance would override its existing free speech policies. Student groups have been sent away to discuss the principles of the free speech framework before finalising its wording in the autumn across the university.

‘Why is an ex-chair of Stonewall who banned a Christian group at the behest of student activists convening a forum on free speech?’