Opinion
The government was right to ditch the free speech act – but for all the wrong reasons
If you are on the same side as UCU and NUS in this fight, something might not be quite right
August 5, 2024 12:10
3 min read
UJS and the Antisemitism Policy Trust have welcomed the decision of the new government to put on hold, and quite possibly repeal, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. This would have, if implemented, put in place mechanisms for staff and students to much more easily seek redress from their institutions if their rights to engage in free speech, within the law, were infringed.
As things like Holocaust denial are within the law, these two organisations were worried that this would create a more hostile environment on campus for students. They were also concerned that as a number of the things that the IHRA definition of antisemitism says are antisemitism are nevertheless lawful speech, implementing the act would put the nail in the coffin of universities adopting and upholding the IHRA definition.
I happen to think that UJS and the Antisemitism Policy Trust are right about these consequences of the Act, that they were right to campaign against it and that this was the right decision by the government. But although the government made the right decision, it was for all the wrong reasons.
It’s not free speech that causes antisemitism on campus - it’s the complete lack of it. Academia has been taken over by a far-left worldview that splits everyone into either oppressor or oppressed. Jews, because they are perceived by the left to have white skin and to be rich and successful, can only ever in this simplistic way of thinking be oppressors, never oppressed. Academics and university leaders either buy into this frame of mind or, if they disagree with it, are too afraid of what their colleagues will say about them to openly come out against it. This is what the Freedom of Speech Act was designed to put a stop to: the idea that there is only one permitted right way of thinking in universities.
Sadly, this way of thinking is heavily associated in practice with the expression of antisemitism. That’s why since October 7 antisemitism has soared on campus. That’s also why we have heard, with a few honourable exceptions, virtually nothing from the academic community pushing back against it. Take the example of UCL, where I work, which has had a pro-Palestinian encampment on the main quad, the beating heart of the university, for months. There are regular chanting sessions, both inside the quad and from fellow protestors outside the main gate, close by to the quad. A few weeks ago there were chants of “There is only one solution, intifada revolution”, coordinated inside and outside the quad. Yet if there have been calls from academics condemning this, I must have missed them. Just as I must have missed the condemnation, apart from a very few exceptions, in response to the litany of antisemitic incidents, from the barracking of Jewish students at Cooper Union in New York, to reported cheerleading for Hamas at SOAS, since October 7. I must have missed them as well in response to the weekly antisemitic displays at the marches in central London.
Overall it seems pretty bad for Jewish students (and staff) already. Hard to see how it could get a lot worse than having people call for “intifada revolution”, ie the murder of Jews, at the heart of their campus. So although I agree with UJS that the Freedom of Speech Act did run a risk of making it worse in some ways, what we really need is a reasoned discussion of how we can balance academic free speech and the protection of minorities. This is something that universities across the free world are grappling with, and I think it’s true that the Freedom of Speech Act had not got the balance quite right. However, what has been missed is that it’s only by creating more diversity in thinking on campus that we are ever likely to arrive at right thinking. The current stranglehold of far-left group think is antithetical to many things, including Jews expressing their faith and convictions freely, let alone supporting Jewish national determination. It’s also antithetical to the very ideals of liberal democracy. Institutions committed to liberal democracy do not allow themselves to be taken over, without any fight back, by mobs calling for “intifada revolution”.
Trashing the Freedom of Speech Act may have worked as a short-term measure. However, it seems highly unlikely that the new government has any commitment to engaging in the debate about how to balance free speech on campus with other concerns. Rather, they will see this as an opportunity to kick the whole issue into the long grass. Indeed it seems more than possible that the simplistic binary world view of the far-left on campus might not be that far away, even post-Corbyn, from the true views of the current government - or at least their perception of the views held by many of their core constituencies.
I could be wrong. I hope I am. But it’s instructive to note that the University and College Union, home to so many virulent anti-Zionists, and the National Union of Students, still recovering from voting in a president perceived as creating an environment unwelcoming to Jewish students, have cheered on the government’s decision on the Freedom of Speech Act. If you are on the same side as UCU and NUS in this fight, something might not be quite right.
Joseph Mintz is an Associate Professor in Education at UCL Institute of Education