Here we go then. It's the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill: Second Reading, which I'm watching so you don't have to. First some background... 1/?
Background for reference wonkhe.com/blogs/its-1986…
It's a piece of legislation that enacts material in a command paper from earlier in the year wonkhe.com/blogs/free-spe…
Is there a real problem? This morning I looked at efforts to prove there is by surveying the views of staff and students wonkhe.com/blogs/the-chil…
We've also looked at the SUs that are and are not covered wonkhe.com/wonk-corner/ha…
And some of the inconsistencies with the Online Safety Bill when it comes to "legal but harmful" speech wonkhe.com/blogs/universi…
We've also looked at some of the "where do you draw the line" issues in light of a couple of cases at Essex wonkhe.com/blogs/what-can…
Some major legal questions surrounding the Bill wonkhe.com/blogs/some-big…
We tried to get to the bottom of the government's muddle over antisemitism and campus free speech wonkhe.com/blogs/the-gove…
And the dangers in how the government is framing free speech specifically for work on race and racism wonkhe.com/blogs/the-sect…
Lots more background here too. Right - eyes down, look in, Business Questions to the Leader of the House just finishing up so almost time for Legislation: The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill: Second Reading wonkhe.com/tag/freedom-of…
Gavin Williamson, Secretary of State for Education up first. Invites the house to imagine "how many of us ever pause to reflect on how very fortunate we are to be able to take freedom of speech for granted"
Moves onto an old rhetorical trick - frames the legislation as a way of defending the brave. "Take those trailblazers who argued for gay rights or women's suffrage, or Charles Darwin, whose theory of evolution was considered blasphemous and deeply offensive by men."
Apparently, "there continue to be too many reported incidences where students or staff have been silenced or threatened with loss of privileges or even dismissal for airing views or opinions that others disagree with."
Challenged on an evidence base for the legislation, GW argues that the legislation is about "principles". Another challenge from the Labour benches asks if he has evidence. "We're talking about principles here", says GW.
Trips himself up by referring to a moment where he said "we'll legislate if we need to", and hecklers ask him for what the need is. Refers back to a handful of "Darwins" that might be being silenced on campus unless he acts.
Quotes the King's thing on 25% of students advocating violence if they disagree with something (not quite what it said, but hey ho) and quotes the usual Policy Exchange findings. wonkhe.com/blogs/proposal…
Jess Phillips intervenes on the chilling effects on freedom of expression of sexual harassment and misconduct on campus. Stats?
William son quotes the "amazing" work done by OfS on the issue. I think that's a stretch, to be honest.
The actual "students are violent" finding... 
Ah. A Labour MP intervenes with the "holocaust deniers" (ie Donelan on R4) issue. GW quotes the Public Order Act, Prevent Duty and Equalities Act. The question of whether David Irving could speak on campus on cake manufacture is conveniently avoided.
Perhaps inevitable - but clear that many of the technical issues (ie two complaints bodies) haven't been fixed here.
Kate Green's on her feet now - starts by arguing that it's Labour that has the history of freedom of speech defence. "Nobody should be fooled now that the party opposite has changed its stance,
...it recently introduced a new law with significant consequences got freedom of expression - the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill"
Going in hard on legal protection for hate speech.
And now goes in on "legal but harmful" - notes that there may not be a "victim" of harassment as per Equality Act 2010. Who/what does the Bill protect? Vaccination conspiracists?
Now we're down a Hong Kong/China cul-de-sac and Gavin is ranting when complexity and deep understanding would be better.
Gavin argues that "there have been a number of incidences where minority students have found themselves silenced, as, as a result of much larger groups of student bodies actually putting pressure on especially within student unions to silence them". Evidence? Sigh.
KG trying the OfS/Wonkhe stats - and argues campuses won't feel like safe spaces if people can come onto campus and be harmful but lawful.
KG argues that OfS should produce the latest speakers stats. I was denied them even by FOI!
Now she's pulling apart the Policy Exchange data and questioning this as a priority when students trying to recover from lost learning during the pandemic.
Interesting row just now about the double complaints procedures and the legal tort opening up the possibility of vexatious claims.
She's spotted that Oxford and Cambridge colleges aren't covered.
Carol Monaghan (SNP) is next up. Very difficult to work out which side she's on when it comes to the Bill. Generally seems to be opposed to cancel culture but doesn't reference the debate in Scotland over the Hate Crime Bill.
Ah. David Davis on his feet now. Having another run at the "brave people challenging paradigms" thing. Seems to be re-reading out his speech from when he launched his own PM bill in February. No-one was listening then I guess.
This is already like being a meeting of a Russell Group SU union council meeting in the mid-90s. Voltaire? Tick. "Debate will solve everything"? Tick.
"The early stages of the development of a totalitarian state" please!
OK - what's interesting is that this is becoming a speech about online behaviours. Much of which involve the general public, former students, trolls and bot farms. How you fix that via duties on unis and SUs god alone knows.
Welcomes a bill that will outlaw no platforming of Amber Rudd, Julie Bindel, Peter Hitchens, Peter Tatchell and others. I know, I know...
Well. An interesting speech on the Online Harms Bill, but not one really about the actual Bill!
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South, Labour) is up next. Has a run at "here's all the real issues students talk about" - money, mental health etc. Guess what nobody raises?
This is a great speech on the many many many things that students need answers on other than this issue. "The issue this bill seeks to address is not on anyone's list of priorities. It's a sledgehammer to crack a very small nut". Sexual/racial harassment? Mental health?
"Opening our universities up to vexatious and frivolous claims, and may actually make universities more risk averse, more cautious about who they invite to speak" @Stephen_Curry
Dean Russell (Watford, Con) now. He's my MP! @dean4watford.
Raises the issue of "hatemobbing" on social media. Another one that raises interesting issues of how free speech works on Twitter, but forgets that the "hatemobbing" is often done by non students, ex students, trolls and bot farms. Wrong Bill, really.
I wrote about some of that in here wonkhe.com/blogs/isnt-it-…
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury, Labour) next. Could be interesting for obvs reasons - opens with reminding Conservatives they "no platformed" Sinn Fein.
Has a strong run at the gender critical feminism position, raises names/cases of what she argues is silencing of some figures with that set of views.
Despite all that, argues that universities have to strike a balance and basically argues against the legal provisions in the Bill. Supports aims - but as drafted unnecessary and a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Fiona Bruce (not that one, Con MP for Congleton) now. Has a short list of anecdotes of things that didn't happen to people but that they were worried might happen to them (someone said I daren't go for a job with my views, etc etc)
Ah OK this is the (some) christian(s) are oppressed on campus for their views position - quotes a survey of 69 christian academics.
Forgive the auto transcription - but surely this story isn't true?!?! It's so bizarre!
Ah. She probes on the "freedom within expertise" issue - concerned about that.
So far I'm struck by how much of the material amounts to "some ideas or people are unpopular on campus". I just wonder whether you can legislate to make some ideas more popular.
OK - Jess Phillips is now up and doing "here's six students who really have been silenced". #1 is a student under an NDA having reported a rape. Others similar cases.
Makes a pretty powerful case for a need for powers and a Bill and a regulatory framework for those students.
Now John Hayes, leader of the "common sense group" of MPs in Parliament (statues, National Trust, etc) who once said to me in Parliament "thank god you lot in NUS are no platforming the anti-Semites - we won't ban them"
"In June, 2020, a student at Leeds University was placed under investigation for questioning BLM". Sigh.
Ironically, by the way, we were talking to him about how SUs didn't routinely No Platform any more but risk assess to balance complex duties. He'd had a wine...
The most enormous straw man is present across this debate - the students and academics who won't debate issues. It's either disingenuous or tone deaf. At least recognise that what we're talking about is people who don't want their own existence to be the subject of debate?
SAFE SPACE POLICY parliament.uk/globalassets/d…
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat St Albans) has a run at unnecessary because 1986, lack of evidence, vexatious claims, chilling effect on controversial events, and protection for hate speech.
Gareth Bacon (Con, Orpington) runs at sunlight/disinfectant. Says the Bill was a manifesto commitment (it wasn't) and we get yet another run at agitators trying to shut others down. Yep - cancel culture again.
Seems to be opposed to student protest (!) but that is a classic debate kernel. Is student protest and example of free speech, or an example of a threat to it?
Something something anarcho-Marxists
Danny Kruger (Con, Devizes) argues "academic freedom is under sustained intellectual attack in our universities". He's now deep in identity theory.
I say "deep". I don't mean "deep".
I'm sad that so far nobody has noticed that bodies like this will be covered. As if! btc.ac.uk/students/stude…
Tonia Antoniazzi (Labour, Gower) having another run at the GC feminists being shut down position.
Another notable thing so far is that other than Jess Phillips, nobody else has had a run at the "what about everyone else silenced on campus" argument. And it's notable that nobody has noticed the way in which the legislation might enable shut down of anti-racism work.
Have none of them worked out what stuff like this means?
Richard Holden (Con, North West Durham) (and a former SpAd for GW). Quotes recent meetings at Durham Uni. Says a leading academic had been castigated for teaching John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty".
Makes a defence of the Bill on the basis that without it, China might exert a disproportionate influence on speech on campus.
Argues that without the Bill people won't raise issues like the treatment of the Uyghurs.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry, Labour) up now - talks about the England football team and hate speech etc. Moves on to the Prevent critique - "freedom of speech and academic freedom are routinely restricted and denied" by Prevent.
And moves on to "marketisation is the real FoS threat".
Beth Winter (Lab, Cynon Valley) now - lots of sector experience. Raises the academic freedom within "field of expertise" issue, and otherwise repeats many of UCU's arguments.
Lee Anderson (Con, Ashfield) fresh from his big unboxing weekend, now.
"Now then, if we control what students in universities can listen to, then we're controlling what they can think and the type of person they will become. Now that may work in places like North Korea, and possibly within the Labour Party, which has no place in our society...
...and this bill will strengthen free speech and academic freedom at universities. It is not the Labour Party's job, or anyone else's to control who we will listen to."
"Rosa Freedman received a passive aggressive email from a University of Reading student" I don't think the Bill is going to change students or academics sending passive aggressive emails.
Kevan Jones (North Durham) discusses all the current things that protect free speech on campuses - and makes the university institutional autonomy argument. Notes no detail on how the Bill relates to other obligations re Prevent, EA2010, etc
"This legislation is a lawyer's picnic... will lead to money that should be spent on education being spent on lawyer's fees..."
Kevan Jones was speaker 22 of 48 by the way!
James Daly (Con, Bury North) argues that because Parliament says it's not the intention of the law to provide cover for holocaust deniers, they won't find any in the Bill. Hmm...
He argues now that anti-vaxxers should be given a platform and that their ideas should be debated not shut down.
So anti vaxxers should be shut down online (legal but harmful, Online Safety Bill) but allowed on campus (legal but harmful Free Speech Bill).
HOW HAS NOT ONE SPEAKER NOTICED THE CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO BILLS YET
Daniel Zeichner (Lab, Cambridge) now - does the whole "lots of issues in HE, this isn't the big one" thing.
Good point - "is it more difficult now in a social media driven instant communication world? Well yes, but isn't just universities, it's a wider societal question."
Interesting exchange. Will this lead to less free speech (events are too risky) or more (because unis and SUs won't restrict any more). The answer depends on whether you think there's lots of "active restriction" happening now...
What a closing line! "I'd hazard a guess Mr Deputy Speaker, in about nine months time, we'll have a glut of newborn children called Gareth, but not many Gavins"
A whole speech now on online harassment and "cancel culture" from Brendan Clarke-Smith (Con, Bassetlaw). He says "student unions are getting rid of organisations they simply don't like" [no examples, obvs].
Good grief. "Now, when I went to university, believing in free market economics, being a conservative, or simply having a traditional view of what constitutes a man or a woman would not be controversial positions...
"Now I would be accused of hate speech and castigated by somebody with bright pink hair, demanding I'm fired"
Joanna Cherry (SNP, Edinburgh South West) unsurprisingly again argues the GC feminism position.
"Those who say there is not a problem, or simply ostriches, with their head in the sand"
Marco Longhi (Dudley North, Con) next. Tries to start an argument about "No Platforming", which is an interesting tactic given the extent of the "problem".
Objects to the idea that he was risk assessed by the SU when he spoke at a university campus. It's those assessments that facilitate free speech mate!
And he's quoting the stats in this story as if they're true. I looked at the origin of these stats on Wonk Corner... dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8…
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) now - a former national Black Students Officer from NUS. Defends the idea of "No Platform" policies. Why should students be compelled to invite fascists onto campuses, she says.
Another brief pause from listening closely. What's so disappointing so far about the debate is the failure of either side to attempt to see the debate from the others' POV. "Debate" as being exhibited here is the very opposite of educational. It's punch n judy.
Miriam Cates (Con, Penistone and Stocksbridge, it's in Sheffield) now. Yet another run at the "brave offenders in history" argument. We've had six or seven so far, all on the BON template
Now Alex Sobel (Lab, Leeds North West) is up. Argues Bill is slippery slope, forces in society will take advantage, runaway train - nod and wink /dog whistle to racists/antisemites.
Tells the story of when Claire Fox established a "free speech society" at LUU when he was on the exec. Two well known fascists joined - Mark Collett, Chris Beverley - and students decided that No Platform should remain.
Argues free speech can be a cover - for a way for fascists to get into and onto campuses.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South, Con) interesting little row - he argues that Jewish students under threat - but Labour intervenes and arguers the Bill will make that worse, not better.
Argues that the Bill gives teeth to the implementation of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which I think is a stretch. Actually no - I think it's an outright lie.
David Simmonds (Con, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) now talks about the speakers he heard at the Durham Union Society. Lucky man!
If only these MPs had wondered how many of those sorts of events happen outside of the Russell Group - and whether the Bill will a) increase them or b) kill them off.
Because where there's no clamour for big name speakers, and little money - who are the unis and SUs that are going to say "yeah let's prioritise getting controversial speakers in now there's a legal threat if it goes wrong"
Taiwo Owatemi (Lab, Coventry North West) does the whole "why is this a priority" thing. A "complete non issue" that's "surplus to requirements".
Only ten speeches to go by the way. And there's lots of drop out at this end of the debate.
Charlotte Nichols now (Lab, Warrington North) - has a good run at Labour's various lines (wrong priority, where's the line, what is freedom of speech etc)
Mary Kelly Foy now (Lab, City of Durham). Has a go at "freedom of speech shouldn't be freedom from consequences". Why will unis and SUs have to roll out the red carpet for "holocaust deniers, transphobes, antivaxxers and others with deplorable views"
Notable at this end of the evening that we've now run out of Conservative speakers on the call list...
Paul Blomfield (Lab, Sheffield Central) now. Makes an excellent speech (as we might expect) on the role that the Bill plays in wider culture wars. Reflects on the 86 act and 94 act and way in which these moral panics are rolled out as diversions.
Good line: "A new director for freedom of speech at the Office for Students, with a full time responsibility to keep the issue alive." hehe
Goes on to argue discussion is missed opportunity to look at learning loss, rent, lack of part time work, student support, quarantining for Sept, etc etc
Catherine West now (Lab, Hornsey and Wood Green) does a boilerplate "wrong priorities" and "what about the other big questions" thing.
"Universities are not the enemy. This bill will just cause more paperwork and bureaucracy, for a sector which is already struggling. "
So now we have Sarah Owen (Lab, Luton North) with another "this isn't the important issue that students are raising" speech. "Guess how many students got in touch about 'balancing out the debate on anti-racism'" and has another run at Prevent silencing Muslim students.
Argues the reason why students aren't voting Conservative isn't a free speech issue on campus - it's the way the government treats them.
I wrote about that here wonkhe.com/blogs/does-stu…
John McDonnell now (Lab, Hayes and Harlington, former Shad Chancellor) who also runs the usual Labour lines. "A grubby political stunt worthy of the derision it's received tonight"
Jim Shannon now (DUP, Strangford). Supports the Bill because we should disagree with people we disagree with or something.
Claudia Webbe now (Leicester East, Ind but ex Lab) who always seems to wind up the sector with fee refund tweets. Something about No Platform, but I'm flagging now tbh.
Oh OK - it's a speech about defending No Platforming. But then pointing out it's rare.
Right. Matt Western (Lab, Warwick and Leamington and shadow HE minister) now. Reminds us of the three main Labour lines - “wrong priority”, “no evidence” and “home for haters”.
And finally! It's Michelle "David Irving can sue because holocaust denial is legal" "oh actually maybe not" Donelan.
Weird row now where MD claiming the debate has featured lots of evidence (she means anecdotes). But mainly runs Con lines - brave dissenters, free speech defenders, chilling effect, "freedom" matters, deliver the manifesto.
Well - that was an inevitably disappointing “debate”. Labour tried “wrong priority”, “no evidence” and “home for haters” - as would expect.
GC feminists appeared, but few spoke on others who feel they can’t speak now ie Trans students.
Nobody really picked up the threats to anti-racism work.
On the Con side, I heard a lot of railing against straw men, and speeches against online cancel culture that’s little to do with unis and SUs (in those scandals you get more non students, bots and trolls than students)
And not a single Con speaker tried to recognise that what SUs and unis are trying to do is protect students from harm - even if in their view some go too far.
Nobody picked up the contradictions with the Online Safety Bill. Sigh.
What was notable - with lots of references to Jewish students and some references to Muslim students - was reference to harassment on campus. One side says the Bill will make it worse (giving license to nasty people) the other says it stops it (by halting cancel culture).
They can’t both be right!
It’s still my view that this Bill is oddly incompatible with duties, work and processes needed in the areas of Duty of Care/harassment. And that needs a proper look at the detail and scrutiny stages.
Very few contributors seem to have engaged beyond the note from the whips or the briefings from Universities UK/UCU.
Maybe it’s always like this - I don’t tend to follow other Bills quite this closely. But very little content about what “goes on” rang accurate or true, and a whole night of floating anecdotes.
Much of the stuff I’m interested in will happen at line by line scrutiny - and as we warned in Wonkhe Mondays, it was always going to be like this.
Still so much of this seems to be about finding ways to make some views more popular. You can’t legislate to make ideas fashionable.
But most disappointing of all really was a lack of defence of the intentions of universities and their SUs to try hard to balance freedom of speech and freedom from harm even in the cases quoted. Real pity. Ho hum.
Oh god. MD ending on Voltaire. Like I said, 4 hours of a Russell Group SU union council debate on no-platform in the mid-90s. Adios!
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
