2 ms·

It didn't happen here, either in my view. Yes, Griffin got rinsed - but the reason his vote collapsed was not that a small number of people watching Question Ti

by pmyteh 4y ago

It didn't happen here, either in my view. Yes, Griffin got rinsed - but the reason his vote collapsed was not that a small number of people watching Question Time suddenly realised that he wasn't any good. Rather, the rise of UKIP took away the non-fascist right wing protest vote part of his coalition, which was always a lot bigger than the National Front-esque true believers. We're not even on our first go around this University "free speech" game. A previous Conservative government put anti-no-platform clauses into the Education (No. 2) Act 1986[0] during the previous 'politically correct' moral panic. The practical effect is to require universities themselves to make sure that there are facilities for speakers etc. that their students union refuses to host for political or moral reasons. These duties are still in force. [0]: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/61/section/43 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/61/section/43

Spivak 4y ago
> that their students union refuses to host for political or moral reasons Weird, I figured it would be the opposite. I get if students wanted to host someone then the University can't tell them no, but when would the opposite happen. What University is that bad at reading the room? Who are they expecting the audience to be?
- pmyteh 4y ago
  The usual scenario is that a bunch of students decide that they want to be principled and/or edgy and invite someone unpopular and/or unpleasant to speak. The SU says 'no, we don't let our space be used for meetings with Nazis/homophobes/Erdogan enthusiasts/whoever', and now the university (imagined by the law as a kind of parent body of the SU) has some legal duties. I think part of the 'menace' fought by the Act when introduced was the anti-apartheid boycott of South Africa. Many SUs wouldn't platform pro-apartheid speakers, while student Conservative Party clubs generally took the British government line against the ANC and in favour of the SA government.
  - hayd 4y ago
    In the case I mentioned it wasn't the SU's space, it was the debate club's. It wasn't Durham's SU that has the problem, it was the national SU, and they bused in protestors.

by pmyteh 4y ago

Spivak 4y ago

> that their students union refuses to host for political or moral reasons Weird, I figured it would be the opposite. I get if students wanted to host someone then the University can't tell them no, but when would the opposite happen. What University is that bad at reading the room? Who are they expecting the audience to be?

pmyteh 4y ago
The usual scenario is that a bunch of students decide that they want to be principled and/or edgy and invite someone unpopular and/or unpleasant to speak. The SU says 'no, we don't let our space be used for meetings with Nazis/homophobes/Erdogan enthusiasts/whoever', and now the university (imagined by the law as a kind of parent body of the SU) has some legal duties. I think part of the 'menace' fought by the Act when introduced was the anti-apartheid boycott of South Africa. Many SUs wouldn't platform pro-apartheid speakers, while student Conservative Party clubs generally took the British government line against the ANC and in favour of the SA government.
- hayd 4y ago
  In the case I mentioned it wasn't the SU's space, it was the debate club's. It wasn't Durham's SU that has the problem, it was the national SU, and they bused in protestors.