Serious intellectual endeavour, the pursuit of the truth and scientific experimentation all require free and open debate. The development of ideas and of clarity is intimately linked with a clash of conflicting opinions. That is why free debate is not simply desirable but essential to the maintenance of a healthy life of a university. Most academics know this, which is why in principle they tend to uphold the freedom of speech in their institutions.
However attitudes towards free debate are often far too pragmatic and frequently the violation of this principle encounters little opposition. Some academics take very seriously the importance of free speech for themselves while are indifferent to the predicament faced by their colleagues. Too often members of the academic community are selective about whose right to free speech they uphold. So some lecturers took strong exception to the Government's demand that academics monitor the activities of radical Muslim groups on campuses. They rightly interpreted this as an attempt to curb free speech and close down discussion. But, sadly, their objection was not always inspired by a genuine conviction that freedom of speech is a fundamental principle that must be defended in all circumstances. Some opponents of the attempt to ban radical Muslim speakers are not particularly bothered if a Zionist lecturer is silenced. The institutionalisation of the policy of 'no platform for racists' means that any one accused of offending racial or ethnic sensibilities faces a call to be banned from speaking.
Unfortunately, experience indicates that coupling free speech with the demand to 'tackle extremism' or 'racism' serves as a prelude to calls for regulating debate. Government officials claim that though free speech is important 'we also have a responsibility to tackle extremism on campus'. Change the word extremism to racism or homophobia or sexism and far too many people are likely to adopt this equivocal orientation towards the right to free debate. I can fully understand why people are offended by hateful racist speech or by the violent rhetoric of extremist speakers. But just because the words offend or even threaten the security and sense of well-being of some of us it is wrong to call for the censorship of speech. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued in his support for free speech; 'every idea is an incitement'. Or as the Indian feminist Shohini Ghosh stated 'there is no speech that hurts absolutely no one'. Ideas – especially new innovative and radical ones - are going to cause pain to some and threaten vested interests.
One reason why free debate in a university is so important is precisely because ideas that matter develop through argument and debate. Experience shows that many enlightened sentiments which help move society forward were at one point dismissed as subversive or odious views.
Yes, free debate provides proponents of hateful and destructive views considerable opportunity to promote their fallacious and insidious ideas. No doubt some people can be influenced by such sentiments and they may go on to adopt forms of behaviour that threatens society. But thankfully a free clash of views also provides open minded responsible citizens with an opportunity to advocate their opinion and to counter the preachers of hate. Instead of opting for regulating debate it is preferable to expose such calls to prejudice and hate and put forward a coherent alternative. Discrediting a message of hate through exposing its fallacy represent an instance of democratic education while repressing it provides a bureaucratic solution to the problem. Either we genuinely believe in open debate and its ability clarify the issues at stake or adherence is based on pragmatism and a weak sense of tolerance.
The freedom to debate should be upheld in principle. But there is also a pragmatic reason for opposing the regulation of free speech. Anyone who is worried about ideas that threaten society and its well being should welcome the open exchange of views. In such an environment, there is at least the possibility of confronting such objectionable points of view. But the censoring or curbing of dissident ideas only drives them underground where their influence may remain unchecked. Those who wish to censor offensive or threatening views are motivated by the pessimistic conviction that 'their' ideas have so much more appeal than ours that the best response is to ban them. More often than not it is the lack of confidence in our own ideals rather than the influence of those that threaten us that constitutes the real problem. Which is why an openness to the testing of ideas represents a defining feature of a confident university.
