4 ms·

This is a meaningless dog-whistle comment by an incompetent minister. To my knowledge, the OfS will have no real power to regulate student unions, which are the

This is a meaningless dog-whistle comment by an incompetent minister. To my knowledge, the OfS will have no real power to regulate student unions, which are the primary organisations where “no-platforming” would be a policy, and fining institutions for the behaviour of students unions is just dumb. I think it’s utterly vital that controversial views are aired, and that ludicrous fascist and racist views are publicly exposed to ridicule. But student unions are private organisations, governed generally democratically, and they must equally be free to decide on what policy they will take towards external speakers. The “no platform” policy of the NUS which is mentioned in the article is very narrow – it applies to six specified organisations, and forbids the use of union premises, speaking at union events, and rules out membership of those organisations for union officers. Personally I don’t think it’s worth the cost, in particular because these policies have muddied the debate with a lot of ill-informed misinformation from every perspective - the various controversial speakers, for example, are not subject to any “no-platform” policy, but have been excluded from discussion based on the decisions of individual students. Frankly the far bigger problem is the attitude of those individual students. It’s been about a decade since I was at university, but even then the entire sphere of student politics was filled with ill-informed reactionaries who had very little tolerance for the idea that people might disagree with them while not being evil. The idea of Peter Tatchell being excluded from a discussion of gay rights is outright ludicrous, and just reflects the bubble that these folk tend to live in. That’s the thing we should be worried about, rather than some bogus hand-waving about safe-space policies that don’t actually exist and are just red meat to the usual shit-stirrers.

DanBC 9y ago
> The idea of Peter Tatchell being excluded from a discussion of gay rights is outright ludicrous, and just reflects the bubble that these folk tend to live in. > That’s the thing we should be worried about, rather than some bogus hand-waving about safe-space policies that don’t actually exist and are just red meat to the usual shit-stirrers. I don't understand how you can say "there's not a no-platform policy, and if there is it only applies to six very small extremist organisations", and then mention Peter Tatchell being excluded from a discussion.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  Peter Tatchell was not excluded by any no-platform policy; an NUS official stated that she did not want to share a stage with him. That’s different; I think it’s astonishingly stupid, but it’s still the action of one person and not the action of the wider body.
insickness 9y ago
> student unions are private organisations, This is seems incorrect: "Funding for the unions comes from a "block grant" from the university" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_students%27_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_students%27_unions_in_...
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  Some does. My union at Edinburgh generated some 75% of its income through commercial operations, though. I suppose you could make the argument that the block grant could be contingent upon being free from “no platform” policies.
PrimHelios 9y ago
>and that ludicrous fascist and racist views are publicly exposed to ridicule I agree, but putting those views on a platform where they are heard more than the views of the people they're attacking is absolute horse shit. Why is it perfectly fine to give platforms to people spouting Nazi talking points, or transphobia/homophobia/racism, but the minorities those people are saying should be killed aren't given anywhere near as high a platform by universities? If you're going to give a platform to people spouting bigotry and bullshit, you have to give even more of a platform to the people peacefully talking about why they shouldn't be killed just for being alive.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  I completely agree with you. The underlying reason is that students love to be “edgy” and “controversial” - part of the experience of student politics sure enough, but maybe lacking some wisdom.
  - PrimHelios 9y ago
    I think that edgy and controversial attitude is why colleges should let students have debate clubs, or clubs where students with differing opinions can hash things out calmly. A speaker, on the other hand, is not spreading a different viewpoint, it's putting a viewpoint above every other viewpoint. Forcing unis to allow conservative speakers under a threat of a fine is the government literally enforcing a viewpoint in a way that indoctrinates students. I'm a left-leaning centrist libertarian socialist, and I'd have no problem going to talks presented by far-left or far-right speakers, but a talk given by someone saying I'm subhuman, deserve to be raped, or should be killed for who I am? That's fucked up. The government shouldn't be forcing colleges to allow speakers spouting that kind of thing. If this was the government trying to enforce and NPR-style "no political bias" rule for public colleges, that would be awesome, but this isn't what's going on. The first paragraph of the article makes it clear they want to force colleges to let transphobes speak. Hell, the article itself even seems to have a huge bias for this law, juxtaposing shitty beliefs with left-wing beliefs to push a narrative: "Asked about cases where students had tried to deny speaking slots to Tatchell, a gay rights campaigner, and Greer, a feminist writer, over their views on transgender issues".

DanBC 9y ago

> The idea of Peter Tatchell being excluded from a discussion of gay rights is outright ludicrous, and just reflects the bubble that these folk tend to live in. > That’s the thing we should be worried about, rather than some bogus hand-waving about safe-space policies that don’t actually exist and are just red meat to the usual shit-stirrers. I don't understand how you can say "there's not a no-platform policy, and if there is it only applies to six very small extremist organisations", and then mention Peter Tatchell being excluded from a discussion.

matthewmacleod 9y ago
Peter Tatchell was not excluded by any no-platform policy; an NUS official stated that she did not want to share a stage with him. That’s different; I think it’s astonishingly stupid, but it’s still the action of one person and not the action of the wider body.

insickness 9y ago

> student unions are private organisations, This is seems incorrect: "Funding for the unions comes from a "block grant" from the university" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_students%27_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_students%27_unions_in_...

matthewmacleod 9y ago
Some does. My union at Edinburgh generated some 75% of its income through commercial operations, though. I suppose you could make the argument that the block grant could be contingent upon being free from “no platform” policies.

PrimHelios 9y ago

>and that ludicrous fascist and racist views are publicly exposed to ridicule I agree, but putting those views on a platform where they are heard more than the views of the people they're attacking is absolute horse shit. Why is it perfectly fine to give platforms to people spouting Nazi talking points, or transphobia/homophobia/racism, but the minorities those people are saying should be killed aren't given anywhere near as high a platform by universities? If you're going to give a platform to people spouting bigotry and bullshit, you have to give even more of a platform to the people peacefully talking about why they shouldn't be killed just for being alive.

matthewmacleod 9y ago
I completely agree with you. The underlying reason is that students love to be “edgy” and “controversial” - part of the experience of student politics sure enough, but maybe lacking some wisdom.
- PrimHelios 9y ago
  I think that edgy and controversial attitude is why colleges should let students have debate clubs, or clubs where students with differing opinions can hash things out calmly. A speaker, on the other hand, is not spreading a different viewpoint, it's putting a viewpoint above every other viewpoint. Forcing unis to allow conservative speakers under a threat of a fine is the government literally enforcing a viewpoint in a way that indoctrinates students. I'm a left-leaning centrist libertarian socialist, and I'd have no problem going to talks presented by far-left or far-right speakers, but a talk given by someone saying I'm subhuman, deserve to be raped, or should be killed for who I am? That's fucked up. The government shouldn't be forcing colleges to allow speakers spouting that kind of thing. If this was the government trying to enforce and NPR-style "no political bias" rule for public colleges, that would be awesome, but this isn't what's going on. The first paragraph of the article makes it clear they want to force colleges to let transphobes speak. Hell, the article itself even seems to have a huge bias for this law, juxtaposing shitty beliefs with left-wing beliefs to push a narrative: "Asked about cases where students had tried to deny speaking slots to Tatchell, a gay rights campaigner, and Greer, a feminist writer, over their views on transgender issues".