A Friends of Palestine society banned from staging a street theatre performance called “Mock Checkpoint”. A student member of a Kurdish society barred by her Oxford college from chairing an event on Kurdish struggles. A Glasgow School of Art MA exhibition censored.
These are just some of the bans imposed by universities in recent years under the government’s anti-terror Prevent guidelines. According to the Office for Students, 2,153 events or speakers had restrictions placed on them by universities because of Prevent, in 2017-18; 53 were banned. The impact of Prevent, Soas’ Prof Alison Scott-Baumann observes, is not to counter terrorism but to create “a situation where thought becomes dangerous”.
There has been much discussion recently about censorship in universities, with the launch of Toby Young’s Free Speech Union and the “no-platforming” of the historian Selina Todd and former Tory home secretary Amber Rudd at Oxford colleges.
Critics point out that Prevent imposes far greater restrictions on free speech than student societies but is largely ignored by the likes of Young. That’s true. But that’s no argument for dismissing campaigns for free speech. The more we accept that speakers should be no-platformed because of their views, the less we will be able to challenge the kinds of censorship imposed through government programmes such as Prevent.
So, yes, let’s call out the hypocrisy of those who campaign for free speech but ignore the most egregious acts of censorship. Let’s equally call out the hypocrisy of those who would highlight the chilling effects of Prevent but are willing to no-platform speakers whose views they deplore. Censoring thought because it is “dangerous” should be challenged whoever is the censor.
• Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist
