Panellists analysed why freedom of speech is a frequent subject of disagreements, particularly in the higher education sector, on 19 January at the latest How We Argue event.
Part of the Global Cultures Institute How We Argue event series, the debate considered the challenges to finding consensus on issues relating to freedom of speech and why this issue is so pertinent in today's world.
The debate featured Dr Arif Ahmed MBE, Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom at the Office for Students; Professor Mona Siddiqui OBE, Professor of Religion and Society in King's Department of Theology and Religious Studies; and Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor (SUs) at Wonkhe. The event was chaired by Professor Abigail Williams, Executive Dean of the Faculty of Arts & Humanities.
Universities - and arts and humanities in particular - can find ways to frame the debates we are having about the things we find difficult to talk about.
Professor Abigail Williams, Executive Dean, Faculty of Arts & Humanities
Professor Shitij Kapur, Vice-Chancellor & President of King's College London, proposed three factors shaping today's increasingly contentious climate: developments in the way we understand equality and diversity; changes in the post-World War II geopolitical order; and the role of social media.
He emphasised the role universities can play in improving the way we argue with one another, supporting society as a whole to debate with robustness and civility.
Universities have a duty - to model good argument and to teach the next generation to argue well, ensuring those skills are carried back into society.
Professor Shitij Kapur, Vice-Chancellor & President of King's College London
'The game of free speech'
Dr Ahmed described how if you truly support freedom of speech, you should support it even when there are views expressed that do not align with your own. While some people think there should be tighter boundaries in the law - often with good intentions to protect the experience of those who lack power in society - Dr Ahmed highlighted that freedom of speech should apply to freedom for a very wide range of views.
Advocates for freedom of speech on one side or another end up supporting the freedom of speech that they like.
Dr Arif Ahmed MBE, Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom at the Office for Students
Professor Siddiqui emphasised how many topics at the centre of culture wars, such as freedom of expression, are today often conceptualised in soundbites and fragments without any context through social media. One side of the debate can fear silencing and censorship, while the other fears normalising harm and exclusion. Yet in a democracy - which relies on trust, social cohesion and shared norms - Professor Siddiqui believes the dilemma lies in balancing expression and harm.
Safety matters, but emotional discomfort is not the same as danger. A free society must be able to tolerate disagreement.
Professor Mona Siddiqui OBE, Professor of Religion and Society in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies
Dickinson put forward that not everyone in 'the game of free speech' is playing in good faith, citing examples of outrage over 'woke' choices made in universities. He also stressed how freedom of speech debates often focus on those who can and do participate, rather than on those who may not have the confidence to contribute.
To find resolution in universities, Dickinson proposed integrating freedom of speech and equality and diversity - the two sets of concerns that often feature in these debates - and trusting students with leadership roles.
That sense of who feels threatened or out of place becomes much more important than a set of policies about whether you can put a set of wording on a banner.
Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor (SUs) at Wonkhe
The panellists also considered the role of universities in allowing young people to explore different positions and disagree well, and whether this aligns with the fundamental purpose of higher education.
Discarding binary positions
During the audience Q&A, attendees considered whether students - as young adults on a learning journey - can be forgiven if they put controversial views into the world; how universities can protect spaces for freedom of expression while facing financial pressures; and whether there is pressure on institutions to monitor students' social media.
One person asked whether groups affected by hate speech should have the right to decide if they have been harmed or whether this should be decided elsewhere. Professor Siddiqui said universities need to be clear on what constitutes hateful or harmful speech, but that it is impossible for everyone to be protected from everything all the time. She discussed how we perceive things as binary - such as seeing universities as either 'with us or against us' - but that institutions are usually somewhere in the middle, as they have to consider multiple factors.
Other questions explored whether universities and society in general can address microaggressions in a more efficient way. Dickinson instead recommended creating spaces for students to talk together to find reconciliation and resolve differences, rather than focusing on conduct policies.
The panellists also underlined that students should be responsible with what they post online, as it may lead to unwanted consequences in the future.
Arguments about speech are rarely just about words - they're about whose values are recognised... Restricting speech gives power to authorities to decide what ideas are acceptable. Who gets to decide what is allowed to be said and on what ground? The question touches on power, identity, fear and trust all at once.
Professor Mona Siddiqui OBE
About How We Argue
How and why do we argue? When is argument necessary, what forms does it take, and how do we judge whether it fails or succeeds?
These questions are pertinent to our efforts to talk across boundaries, whether national, cultural, political, or technological, and to our work as scholars and teachers, inevitably involved in provoking and managing disagreements in a range of contexts. To reflect on and explore these questions and model the conduct of arguments, the Global Cultures Institute hosts How We Argue, a series of conversations centred on areas of public life in which disagreements frequently arise.
Rather than merely talking around or about disagreement, each of these conversations focuses on a matter of contention. The purpose is not to stage a debate but to explore the ways in which arguments develop in response to particular topics and to reflect on what these arguments bring to light.
Sign-up to the Global Cultures Institute Newsletter to be the first to hear about our events.
