Study shows growing ‘free speech’ concerns among students

Niina Leppilahti Contributor

Illustated by Rigona Gjinovci

Arecent study published by King’s College London’s Policy Institute, on 29 September 2022, revealed students are increasingly feeling that free speech is “under threat” at their institution. While 65% of students agree that, “free speech and robust debate are protected” at their university, 34% feel as though free speech at university is under threat compared to a gure of 29% seen in 2019.

LSE has clear policies in place to protect individual’s rights to freedom of expression. ese policies are meant to ensure the facilitation of debates and enable all members of our com- munity to refute ideas lawfully, whether through protest on campus or other means. e Beaver interviewed different societies at LSE on how they feel about free speech protection at the school.

Muhammad Ibrahim, President of the Labour society, expressed: ‘‘ ough the [Students’ Union] are actually quite open to facilitating almost any sort of event where di erent views are discussed, it does seem like there is a bit of reluctance in giving students full independence when it comes to thisthis is based purely on the fact that we have been asked to nd an academic chair for our upcoming debate against the conservative society despite all the participants in the debate being students. Other than that, based upon the preparations that a society must make in terms of planning an event that the university, through the SU, does make sure steps are taken to protect against discrimination and hatred.”

He continued: “In terms of fa- this timeframe, however, due to the complexity of cases and need to fully assess the impact of mitigations. In addition, the process is being supported by legal advisors external to LSE. is is to ensure assessment of claims for compensation or a partial refund are undertaken independently. Any relevant updates on timelines for a response will be delivered as part of the formal complaints procedure.” cilitating robust debate, it does strike me as odd that the university doesn't possess a centralised platform - like the Oxford union for example - for students to engage in debate with each other and guest speakers - it seems to be le to societies to piece together themselves, which perhaps results in a setting where the true potential of debate and discourse within the student community isn't being completely optimised.’’

Mike Salem, secretary of the Hayek Society, expressed that LSE and its sta “tend to do a good job at protecting freedom of speech.” He praised the university for hosting debates on all ranges of issues with di erent perspectives as well as its public lectures series, which he regarded as the “pinnacle of freedom of speech on campus.’’ He added that he does not agree with introducing further top-down measures to neither protect nor obstruct freedom of speech, stating this would “shove it down the throat of all stakeholders.” He feels students should be the driving force in deciding on such matters.

Finally, the Intersectional Feminist society agrees that LSE takes “great measures to establish free speech and facilitate open discussion.’’ However, they point out that the notion of free speech o en “ignores the reality of marginalisation and stigmatisation.’’ ey emphasise, ‘‘[We] need to focus on the action dimension of freedom and attend to the intersectionality of privilege. By encouraging tact, consideration, and tolerance, the LSE can play an important role in creating a new kind of freedom.’’

Last year, the Conservative Party introduced a bill which would allow the seeking of compensation for “no-platforming” of controversial speakers. e bill’s third reading was completed on 13 June in the House of Commons; it has now progressed to the House of Lords.