Universities are having the wrong debate about freedom of speech

There’s been much talk recently about freedom of speech.

We at the Centre for Responsible Debate believe that society is conducting this debate on the wrong terms, making problems worse rather than better – which is why our Centre has been working on methods and approaches to debate, perhaps especially knotty subjects, that focus on developing mutual understanding and even agreement where possible.

While recent public discussions on freedom of speech have largely focused on who has the right to speak, when, and where, there’s rarely much discussion of how, ideally, we’d talk to one another. This focus is, at best, limited and, at worst, counterproductive – because the aim of speech is surely more than to merely speak.

In a university, speech isn’t an end in itself but part of inquiry, learning, and the testing of ideas – and that’s why we believe the government and other public institutions, such as universities, are mostly taking the wrong steps to improve the situation.

Paper trail

We’ve recently reviewed the freedom of speech and academic freedom policies of a number of academic institutions in our report, Freedom of speech in higher education, and one thing that stands out is that there’s regulation and codification aplenty, but next to nothing about the ways in which we should discuss disputed issues with shared purpose. Unfortunately, recent legislation¹ appears to be changing paperwork more quickly than it’s improving conversations.

The Centre for Responsible Debate grew out of our work with the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s Young Academy of Scotland on a Charter for Responsible Debate, developed in response to many of the issues society is struggling with. In developing this Charter, the guiding focus was on how to debate – how, that is, to improve the culture of public discourse and provide institutional tools to address issues of deep disagreement.

We’re disappointed not to see more of that focus in recent institutional responses to questions about the value and extent of freedom of speech.

Compliance won’t cut it

In our view, society needs a change in the culture of debate, not an attempt to impose compliance on an area that is, by its nature, resistant to compliance. While the UK government has legislated around a particular approach to free speech, so far it’s done very little to improve – practically – the character of public discussion of divisive ideas.

In the policies we recently reviewed, we found that universities tend to overfocus on legal risk and underplay the opportunities for better debate in pursuit of educational and research outcomes. In a typical university policy on freedom of speech, there’s much about duties, complaints, and discipline, but little about what good disagreement looks like or how to understand the purpose of conversations about controversial topics.

While many think the government’s decision to legislate in this area could be counterproductive, we believe it provides opportunities for improving our culture of public debate that should be seized.

Beyond the podium

Much of recent public policy regarding freedom of speech has focused on how to accommodate external speakers, deal with protests, and whether some topics or personalities are simply off-limits. Those aren’t idle questions, but we doubt they can be adequately addressed without much more policy work on how to support productive internal criticism within institutions, how to limit “chilling effects” of high-profile controversy, and, more generally, how to understand the role of productive disagreement in the everyday life of an academic institution.

In the policies we reviewed, there are a lot of references to “respectful” behaviour, but very little about the sorts of social norms, educational scaffolding, and institutional support that would encourage respectful debate. When we developed our Charter using a participatory process, we found that people wanted debate to be informed, respectful, and inclusive.

The first principle of our Charter is “aim for accuracy, and base your contributions on evidence and experience.” We think debate that aspires to that ideal will move away from amplifying those who shout loudest and towards enabling more of us to engage in shared inquiry.

The wrong debate

The key way in which we believe universities are having the wrong debate about freedom of speech is that, for an institution of learning, the purpose of debate should be to advance knowledge and widen mutual understanding – rather than simply ensuring that everyone speaks, regardless of whether the discussion advances inquiry.

It’s important to hear a wide diversity of viewpoints, and academic institutions are sometimes guilty of systematic deafness to certain voices or kinds of evidence. But the appropriate response to this shortcoming isn’t to host the cacophony of a free-for-all shouting match – it should be to enable more careful discussions of divisive issues in ways that make sure people listen to each other, and that the voices being heard are contributing to advancing knowledge and widening mutual understanding through shared inquiry.

A better model

Consider a university hosting a controversial external speaker on immigration policy. Under a narrow compliance model, the institution’s main concern is whether the event can proceed lawfully and safely, with protest managed and paperwork complete.

Under a responsible debate framework, those steps still matter, but they aren’t the whole task. Organisers would clarify the educational purpose of the event in advance, brief the chair on agreed norms – including when and how to intervene if discussion becomes abusive or misleading – use a format that builds in informed challenge rather than offering a single uninterrupted platform, and hold a short post-event reflection on what was learned and what could be improved. The goal isn’t simply to avoid cancellation or complaint, but to create conditions for serious intellectual engagement.

What to do

A better culture of debate depends on focusing on accuracy and evidence, listening with empathy, and addressing power and accessibility imbalances – yet these appear in the university policies we analysed mostly in passing, if at all. In our review, we developed several recommendations based on steps that universities could take to seize the current opportunity to improve norms and institutions for discussing divisive ideas, with the shared purpose of advancing knowledge and mutual understanding.

Policy on freedom of speech should be part of the institution’s approach to pedagogy, rather than simply aiming for legal compliance. There’s a huge opportunity to develop new and better ways of communication, and universities are a perfect place to explore these.

Responsible debate should be at the heart of procedures and support – meaning a responsible debate framework that forms the basis of major events, hosting of controversial speakers, and so on. It would include pre-event briefing, agreed norms, post-event reflection, and other approaches so that the focus is on learning, not staying out of court.

Complaints procedures and incident processes should be adapted so that they mainly advance learning and knowledge, not just adjudicate disputes. They should feed back systematic lessons, inform staff and student training, and have a “you said, we did” mechanism.

Success should be measured in culture change, not just caseloads. Institutions should pose questions about the character of debate as part of broader surveys of students and staff – measuring not just whether people believe they can speak freely, but also whether they feel debate has changed their minds or informed their beliefs.

And institutions might also track whether staff and students feel able to express disagreement, whether controversial events are well chaired, and whether discussions help participants better understand opposing views.