Are there students afraid to speak on campus, and if so why is that? Jim Dickinson uncovers the anxiety and confidence issues underpinning the silencing of student opinion
This article is more than 3 years old

Over the past few years of frenzied press coverage and intense think tankery over the issue of campus free speech, there’s been plenty of polling purporting to prove this or that.
We’ve had surveys that tell us about self-censorship, pamphlets that profess to show a culture of campus “silent” no platforming, and polling data that invites alarm at students’ apparent preference for safety rather than freedom.
But one thing that’s been consistently frustrating about the findings has been the lack of intel on why students are responding the way they are.
And when you count students like lab rats rather than engage with them, it’s easy to project your own assumptions and prejudices, as you short cut “why” students are self-censoring or demanding that others do the same.
So as part of our work with our partners at Cibyl and a group of “pioneer” SUs – where we’ve been developing a new kind of monthly student survey designed to help SUs and their universities not just know students’ opinions, but understand and learn from their lives too – we thought we’d try to find out what’s been going on with this issue of free speech.
Results are from January and February, around 90 higher education providers are covered and the sample of around 1600 has been weighted for gender and age.
First some headline quantitative findings. We asked pretty much the same the question that’s been in this year’s National Student Survey – and while we can’t be sure that the eventual result will be the same (we only polled universities for a start) what we can say is that the net positive score for this sample is 86 per cent, with a third saying they feel “very” free.
During your studies, how free did you feel to express your ideas, opinions and beliefs?
In our sample that’s a net positive that’s higher than on any other question we asked on teaching quality, academic support or learning resources – and as it’s higher than the questions on assessment and feedback as well, suggests that OfS ought to be recruiting a new Director for Condition B4 rather than whatever code it will give the new free speech duty in the regulatory framework.
The cross-tabs tell a tale. Men are almost ten percentage points higher than women on “very free”, although there’s gender consistency across the two “not free” options. Disabled students felt less free than non-disabled peers, privately educated students felt more free than those from the state system, and those eligible for means-tested bursaries were less confident than those who weren’t.
If your instinct is to assume that the “real” free speech issue is one where disadvantaged groups feel oppressed on campus, there’s plenty in here for you.
Running the numbers on community also shows some startling differences, although this obviously one where your instinct (and likely your age and views on Brexit) push you towards different causation directions for the evident correlation:
| I feel part of a community of students and staff | |||||
| During your studies, how free did you feel to express your ideas, opinions and beliefs? | Strongly agree | Agree | Disasgree | Strongly disagree | |
| Very free | 60% | 28% | 19% | 9% | |
| Free | 34% | 60% | 54% | 46% | |
| Not very free | 4% | 10% | 23% | 32% | |
| Not at all free | 1% | 1% | 4% | 14% |
As ever though, it’s the qualitative comments that really open up the understanding – and on this one, they’re fascinating.
For those (like me) determined to believe that there is no issue on campus, and that this is all a huge right wing conspiracy, I have bad news.
A decent chunk of the answers suggest that the press and the pundits are right – and that “cancel culture” for those with right wing or socially conservative views is at least felt as real:
For those of us determined to see the students at the other end of the freedom from harm/freedom to speak see-saw, there’s material there too:
But in reality, the comments above form the minority of the responses attached to free speech negativity. The bulk of comments fall into three other categories – the first being about subject:
So many of the pundits, wanging on about “debate” being a purpose of higher education, forget that while there may well be debate that surrounds STEM or vocational subjects, the idea of having an intellectual barney as a core bit of teaching and learning isn’t something that makes sense in many students’ minds.
The second big batch isn’t about what the SU President has said on social media or the EDI awareness week that the university is “imposing” – it’s about teaching format and student diversity:
That all suggests that it’s massification and the thinning out of the unit of resource that’s the enemy of an environment where students can think out loud.
But the most common type of comment? Anxiety and confidence:
Why have we been missing this for so long? It’s partly about wanting to find the results that confirm our prejudices, I expect. It’s partly that those of us confident enough to wang on about the subject can’t imagine not having the confidence to speak in a seminar. And I suspect that it’s partly the sector not wanting to admit that the confidence it “imbues” may well be more about who the sector used to recruit than who it now graduates.
We’ve been here before, of course.
In the folklore we imagine that the admissions system filters in students who are “ready” – by which, in many cases, we meant similar in backgrounds and status, highly articulate and confident, and feeling cushioned enough to be able to take risks.
That just isn’t the reality of our hyper-diverse campuses now, and coupled with what we know about the impact of the pandemic on mental health and anxiety, suggests that the ”solution” to the “problem” is about being more deliberate and proactive about building the confidence of new starters to contribute – and designing learning activities that allow for that building.
I’m already weary from hearing of universities considering tick-box online module twaddle as the answer to the free speech “positive duty” question – almost as weary as I am at the idea that the harassment and sexual misconduct duty is do-able in this way too.
The opportunity on both of those agendas and more is to reimagine transition – not just from a “what do they all need to know” point of view, not from a “what do some of them need to know” perspective, and not from a “throw this at them and we have achieved OfS compliance” point of view either.
Proper peer-delivered paddling in the shallow ends of university life is what’s required – and if that means making room for it in the term structure or credits of a programme, so be it.
You can find out more about Belong in our launch brochure here.
New comments will come back with sign-in later this year.
DdS · 25 Apr 2023
This is a really important and welcomed piece in my view. You only need to look at what Oxford’s SU recently attempted to do (which happened after this article) to know that students, staff and everyone in between, is being silenced or pushed into a particular politicised way of thinking in the name of EDI, when it’s really just a political football (usually not supporting the right-wing views as you have suggested).
While mentioning ‘right-wing’ the article near the beginning uses the term “gender consistency”, which from a right-wing perspective, should probably say “sex” instead 😉 What a minefield!

Debbie McVitty | Comment | 8/10/26

Dami Folayan | Comment | 8/10/26

Zoe Torsney | Comment | 8/10/26

Lorenzo Mugnai | Comment | 7/10/26

Sharanya Sivarajah | Comment | 7/10/26

Fiona Walsh McDonnell | Comment | 6/10/26