As many people will be unaware, an idea has gone to referendum that would extend the Union’s ‘no platform’ policy to student media. Other than the proposal being evidence of the extent to which campus is a student bubble, it is an incredibly dangerous idea. The potential consequences of it could be catastrophic, not just for student media, but for the entire student body.
It is all too easy to have a knee jerk reaction to reading the words of someone like Nick Griffin (e.g. “children will die over the next few years, because they’ll be brought up in homes which aren’t married”) but it is the principle behind the idea, rather than specific examples, that must be examined. What would happen if this idea were to be implemented beyond the Union? Who would decide what counted as “objective reporting” and what didn’t? The notion that the reproduction of views equates to promoting them is moronic. Some of the greatest challenges to extremism made in the media and the arts have been by airing and exposing them. Prose that pushes boundaries like Mohsin Hamid’s ‘The Reluctant Fundamentalist’, described by the Guardian as one of the books that defined the last decade, would never have been published. Films like V for Vendetta, imagining a fearful future for the UK under the leadership of a fascist party, would never have been screened. News stories about rallies held by hate groups, where members of groups supporting this idea are often the victims of violence, would go unreported. Would we even understand the concept of fascism without coverage in the media and the arts?
We cannot ignore that fascists, homophobes and racists exist. Sooner or later we will all encounter people with abhorrent views; it is unavoidable. What is avoidable is the thousands of students at Leeds encountering them beyond campus, a space where we can unpick, debate and criticize these views in a safe intellectual environment. If anything, this kind of challenging coverage should be promoted. The suggestion that students should be shielded from certain views is patronising and nonsensical; we have all come to Leeds because of our ability to analyse and understand ideas. Should this idea pass it would have precisely the opposite effect that it intends to have.
It is key that a line is drawn between current LUU policy and what is being proposed. The current ‘no platform’ policy bans hate speakers from campus as they could pose a threat. From a personal point of view, as a mixed race student, the rationale behind the current policy makes sense but the difference between the physical presence of a speaker and media coverage is a very important one: choice. Whilst we might not be able to avoid a speaker spouting their views for all to hear, we all choose on a daily basis what we watch, listen to, and read. Again, if the principle behind this idea were to be implemented beyond the Union would copies of ‘Mein Kampf’ be removed from the library? Would past issues of national newspapers be taken away? The idea that the Union could become a censored zone in the middle of our University is a bizarre, paradoxical prospect.
It is impossible to implement ‘no platform’ for student media without it tipping into censorship. It is also imperative to remember that there is no example where no platform has ever silenced the views of a political party or group, and if anything, it only gives them a ‘martyr’ status that is easy to sypathise with.
We cannot predict the course that these political parties and protest groups will take over the coming years (and I’m sure many of us would hope that they fade into insignificance) but while they continue to have an effect on our society it is our duty not to ignore them. What is important in this debate is a) that the ability of the student body to understand a range of views is not underestimated b) that this is idea is not reduced to being about one article and c) that whatever opinion you hold, you vote in the referendum next week.
By Rehema Grace Figueiredo