Leeds University’s Orwellian Protocol on Freedom of Expression ‘describes the framework within which members of the University and visitors enjoy the right to freedom of expression’[i].
‘Orwellian’ may be an overused phrase nowadays but, as we’ve just said goodbye to the most illiberal government since World War II, it has also become a worryingly accurate one to describe the increased regulation and criminalisation of everyday life, speech and thought in the name of, amongst other things, defending ‘British values’ or protecting the ‘vulnerable’. The Protocol reflects both the general diminished view of the individual who needs their speech and behaviour regulating, and the contradictory notion that the ‘values’ that are seen as important are antithetical to rights of freedom of expression.
The very creation a ‘framework’ within which freedom of expression is to be ‘enjoyed’ already tells us that by the term ‘freedom’ is meant only that which is allowed under the Protocol; rather than the actual freedom to say, listen to and watch whatever university staff and students may wish. Although the Protocol opens promisingly by defending the values of ‘academic freedom … free debate, enquiry and, indeed protest’ this is soon qualified by the claim that it ‘tolerates a wide (my emphasis) range of views … even when they are unpopular, controversial or provocative’. The remaining 23 paragraphs then spell out the narrow range of views and situations that will actually be tolerated.
For example, the Protocol accepts the responsibility to ensure the use of University premises is not denied to any group; but ‘[t]his does not mean freedom of expression is unfettered’. Rather it is limited by laws to protect national security and public safety, for the prevention of crime and disorder, and in particular the ‘duty’ under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which I’ve discussed before on FIPA[ii], for public bodies to promote ‘good relations between persons of different racial groups’. This Act also gives the State the right to establish codes of practice, such as the Protocol, within these bodies. In addition, in considering whether or not to permit Leeds University premises to be used for a particular event, the University will consider:
‘whether the views or ideas to be put forward (or the manner of their expression) infringe the rights of others, or discriminate against them’; or whether the activity in question constitutes a criminal offence or threat to public order or ‘is contrary to the civil and human rights of individuals’ (paragraph 5).
In case you’re unsure as to how such ‘infringement’, ‘discrimination’ or attacks on an individual’s human rights can come about simply through the expression of views, ‘key tests’ are:
‘whether a proposed event is likely to give rise to an environment in which people will experience – or could reasonably fear – harassment, intimidation, verbal abuse or violence; [or] whether adequate arrangements can be made to safeguard the safety of participants in the event, and other people in the vicinity, and to ensure public order is maintained’ (paragraphs 6 & 7).
And just in case there’s any doubt, or more to the point, regardless of the obvious doubts the above criteria may raise as to what the University may or may not allow, or the obvious impossibility of ensuring that many of the conditions won’t be broken:
‘The general rule is that the University will intervene to restrict freedom of expression in any particular case only (my emphasis) on the grounds indicated in [paragraphs] 5-7’.
So, in effect, under the Protocol any event can be banned, and at Leeds University has been[iii], because the University or Student Union bureaucracy has decided in advance that individuals may find it discriminatory, offensive or intimidating or it may create a public order situation. All of which may be true. But then again that’s the nature of public meetings, adult debate and a healthy academic environment. Rather than one in which offence and feelings of harassment are first assumed, and then individuals protected, as if children, from undue suffering due the views of others.
This leaves the decision as to whether an event goes ahead in the subjective hands of university and student union bureaucrats, and their diminished view of both the individual and the purpose of university[iv]. We may all feel, or be made to feel, uncomfortable attending any meeting, and even more so at challenging something we disagreed with. But we’d generally know that in advance. In fact, when attending a political debate you tend to hope there will be some controversial or opposing views, as there’s nothing more boring than listening to everyone singing from the same hymn sheet (even one you agree with). So it’s not like it would be a surprise to most attendees. And even if someone found themselves in a meeting where they were shocked by something someone said: so what? They can choose to leave or challenge what is said. No one has a right not to be offended. Or do they?
A major problem with the Protocol is that it actually does give people the right not to be offended; not just through the interpretation of above-mentioned provisos such as considering whether any views may ‘infringe the rights of others’, but more explicitly in that a meeting can be banned
‘if the subject matter … is or might reasonably be construed as “controversial” (a “controversial” meeting in this context being taken as one which might reasonably be construed as having the potential to occasion protest from, or give offence to, any sections of the University or wider community)’.
This, in effect, gives the ‘you-can’t-say-that’ brigade – the most thin-skinned, prudish and sectarian amongst us — license to attempt to close down any event of which they disapprove: encouraged nowadays precisely by such intellectual cowardice as represented by the Protocol. And it doesn’t take many complaints today for institutions to start getting twitchy about allowing an event to go ahead.
However, possibly the most shocking statement of the Protocol is its claim that, ‘[f]reedom of expression also has to be set in the context of the University’s values, and the values of a civilised, democratic, inclusive society’. Here, not only is freedom of expression not considered a key academic and democratic value, but it is actually counterposed to such values. That’s an incredible position for a university to take. Universities, above all, should be places of freedom of expression and enquiry. That’s not to say that it’s less important outside of the ivory towers, just that in the pursuit of truth no questions or avenues of enquiry should be out of bounds for staff or students alike. In fact, part of establishing truth must entail allowing, and therefore being able to take up, even the most reactionary and obtuse of arguments.
Of course universities and students unions can claim that in ‘fettering’ debate they are just obeying the law. But this is both a tautological and a cowardly argument that deliberately shies away from challenging illiberal legislation and defending the true purpose of academia: especially as such laws and codes of practice are drafted to be as broad and vague as to effectively allow anything to be banned for any reason whatsoever. True freedom of expression is defined precisely by the lack of any ‘framework’ within which it is to be expressed. And universities should be places where anything and anyone can be openly debated and all ideas can be held to account. As such, the Protocol on Freedom of Expression and the legislation that underpins it are anathema to academia, and need to be challenged by staff and students alike.
[i] http://www.leeds.ac.uk/timetable/codeofpr.htm
[ii] The Problem with Diversity Awareness, BY Paul Thomas, FIPA, 13 March 2010.
[iii] Defend the Freedom Campaign, by Gayan Samarasinghe, FIPA, 9 March 2010.
[iv] The dangers of this type of censorship were most clearly illustrated in the recent farce of one Leeds University Union official taking it upon himself to withdraw every copy of the Leeds Student newspaper after interpreting an ambiguous remark by an interviewee as a sign of gross anti-Semitism. See the Leeds Student Online Editorial PULLED: LS removed from shelves.
