Was there a freedom of speech breach at Bangor?
David Kernohan is Deputy Editor of Wonkhe
Tags
It’s honestly been a while since we’ve had one of these.
Sarah Pochin (Reform UK MP for Runcorn and Helsby), and campaigner Jack Anderton, wrote to the student-led Bangor University Debating and Political Society and offered to “give a Q&A to students”. The society considered the request, and “in line with their values” said no thank you.
Let’s pick off the low-hanging fruit first. Reform UK has not been “banned” from Bangor University, or indeed from the Debating and Political Society. It has simply not been invited. The university itself had absolutely no bearing on this decision – it has no powers to compel a student society to issue an invitation.
The “in line with their values” statement made by the society is the only part of this whole episode that has anything to do with freedom of speech. There are many reasons that you might not invite someone to speak at your society – perhaps you had something else booked for that night, perhaps you don’t run “q&a” events (just debates, perhaps), perhaps you are just not interested.
But this is what the society said:
We stand by this decision as a committee. We have zero tolerance for any form of racism, transphobia, or homophobia displayed by the members of Reform UK. Their approach to the lives of others is antithetical to the values of welcoming and fair debate that our society has upheld for 177 years. We are proud to be the first of the debating unions to take a stand against Reform UK. We strongly implore our fellow societies to join us in keeping hate out of our universities.
It’s lamentably easy to wind up Reform politicians with statements like that – and true to form “senior advisor to Nigel Farage” and associate professor of divinity at the University of Cambridge James Orr pops up to say
In a crowded field, it is the worst breach of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 I have ever come across
Is it a breach though? Is it actually? It is possible that Orr is thinking about something in section 3 (“Duties of students’ unions”), a conclusion I reach because we are dealing with a decision made by a student union society rather than a university.
Upfront, we should note that most of section 3 is not actually in force – as per the commencement (number 3) regulations the only bit that is in force is the part that adds a definition of student unions to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.
And even if the entirety of section 3 was in force, it is difficult to see what Orr would be getting at.
It would give the SU the objective of securing freedom of speech within the law for students, staff, and visiting speakers – Sarah Pochin does not fit into any of these categories: she is not a visiting speaker because she has not been invited. She offered to speak, and that offer was turned down.
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act does not offer any remedies for people who just happen to fancy speaking on campus but can’t get invited. The OfS complaints scheme isn’t operational yet, and if it was it would be open only to staff and visiting speakers. The statutory tort also isn’t operational (and probably never will be), but if it was it would be limited to breaches of sections A1 (which doesn’t apply as the university wasn’t involved) and A5 (which isn’t in force, and if it was it only applies to visiting speakers).
All of which rather assumes that Bangor University is in England, and is regulated by the Office for Students. And I have bad news for Reform on that front too. None of the parts of the Act I have mentioned actually apply in Wales.
Which is probably why Reform is apparently considering the perfectly normal alternate approach of defunding the university in revenge if it ever has the power to. Which would put it in breach of section 18 (institutional autonomy) of the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022.
Update: After publication Reform’s Zia Yusuf revealed she had written to the vice chancellor of Bangor University to remind him of obligations under section 43 of the 1986 Education (No. 2) Act. While this is at least applicable in Wales, it does deal only with the use of premises for visiting speakers rather than people who would like to have been invited but have not been.
And Welsh Reform leader Dan Thomas has pledged to introduce a law, within the first 100 days of being in power, allowing the government to fine or restrict access to state funding in cases where it felt “free speech” had not been supported.
Update 2: It seems some parts of Reform UK are backing away from the idea of defunding Bangor University.
Richard Tice wrote “remove all government funding and no student loans for Bangor students”, to which the above article replies “Which would put it in breach of section 18 (institutional autonomy) of the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022”. Of course Reform if it forms the next UK government could simply change that law (and abolish the Welsh Assembly in the process if needed). UK Higher Education seemingly has learned nothing from the American situation (where Trump is actually rather pussyfooting around and there are far more checks and balances than in the UK); Reform could simply completely defund all UK universities and thereby drive them all (expect two) to bankruptcy.
You may be right about the points of law, but this feels disingenuous. Given Bangor Debating Society’s statement, Reform UK appear to have zero chance of ever being invited to debate there. What does that say about the tolerance of, and interest in, different political viewpoints in the SU and perhaps the wider university? Clearly there is a problem. Your article suggests to me that the current legal and governance framework does not adequately address mono-cultural left-wing bias.
Students at Bangor, if interested and motivated, are more than able to invite Reform UK speakers to address any event they happen to be running. For instance, I note that Bangor has a “Medieval Re-Enactment Society”- and there is nothing that would prevent them from inviting Lee Anderson to address them in costume as a Crusader as should they so wish.
When I was at university, I ran the Judo and Jujitsu club. Should I have been forced to host Sarah Pochin if she decided she wanted to give a guest talk? How about if I’d run the Christian Union? Should I have been required to host a talk by the Church of Satan?
A better analogy would that, whilst running your Judo club, Yasuhiro Yamashita offered to give a talk but you turned him down, you said “no thanks” to a papal visit to the Christian Society, and everyone on the committee thought that was for the best.
What is the point of Bangor Uni’s Debating and Political Society if it isn’t prepared to debate different political opinions, what does that say about the mind set of its student organisers, and, more worryingly, what might that indicate about the wider culture in HE and its governance?
I hope some Bangor students have the balls to set up a proper debating society and that these muppets, in a moment of self-awareness, decide to rebrand as the Socialists Talking Amongst Themselves Society which it clearly is.
Maybe the point is for the students themselves to practice debating amongst themselves rather than have outsiders come in. That would be perfectly legitimate. Do we know if they have ANY guest speakers?
They can’t debate amongst themselves, that would mean opposing arguments to the “principles” of the society and which would therefore not be allowed.
The problem is that once “principles” are overly politically applied it leaves counter arguments unacceptable – essentially becoming devoid of debate.
Its called an echo chamber which the lefties love
It’s a perfect example – in that the Judo club might be in the business of running training rather than offering talks, and the Christian Society might be aligned to protestant evangelical traditions and therefore uninterested in a chat with the pope.
In the same way, a debating society may not necessarily want to spend an evening listening to a minor MP from a constituency nearly three hundred miles away who has frequently been reprimanded for inappropriate speech and politically motivated scaremongering, and may instead choose to hold a debate.
*Whistles casually in the background*
The Christian Union, which is evangelical, would not constitutionally be able to invite the Pope because he could not sign their doctrinal basis.
This has been the stance for more than a century for CUs.
The analogy works in that teh Pope would be free to speak at the Catholic Society, just as Pochin is free to speak at any society that invites her, or to book her own room.
Pochin’s manoeuvre, and the unhinged anti-free-speech political threats made by Zia Yusuf and repeated by my MP the Leeanderthal Man, are authoritarian.
100%. Responding with threats to defund because they didn’t get their way is 100% authoritarian and playing out currently in my home (the USA). We should see Reform’s response, regardless of our views about whether the student society made a prudent choice, as a clear shot across the bows of our own British democracy.
Well, the biggest threat to British democracy seems to be the current Labour government (having actually actually cancelled elections and all…).
Exactly 💯
Yes you should!
I don’t see how clear this problem is. If the problem is that students don’t like Reform (not necessarily the case), that sounds like a Reform problem. Even if your argument is curried, you’ll need to show that the debating society actively promotes a particular ideology that was not only against reform but both against the political ideas it espouses and prevents debate on them (I had a brief look, and that couldn’t be said). If students aren’t interested in a thing, and the students’ union is an independent membership club for students with a mandate to deliver on the things students are interested in, then they’ll act outside their purposes doing stuff on it.
Perhaps it has more to say with Reform’s policies being antithetical to students and their reaction of throwing their baby out with their bathwater proves they have less debate skills than the students they want to ‘educate’. Claiming you’ll pull funding is the political equivalent of suggesting you won’t invite your friend to your primary school birthday party. It’s genuinely embarrassing for them.
Also, in this case, the Debating Society is not actually RUNNING a Q&A nor are they obliged to host one. They’re not a political lobbying space. They’re a student debate club. Reform have asked to do a Q&A (I assume without suggesting any contrasting politician be invited) and they have been rejected. The student committee is allowed to reject, and even to reject because it does not align with the values of their society. Why is it that people are so up in arms about having the right to ‘freedom of speech’ and being able to reject whoever they please because of ‘values’, until the people being rejected are Reform?
There is nothing to stop Bangor students starting a Reform society I guess, which could then host events for Reform party politicians.
With regards to setting up a Reform Society, see the following WonkHE article:
https://wonkhe.com/blogs/supporting-students-and-free-speech-on-campus-requires-reform/
The most relevant quote: ““Students signed petitions and directed their anger at the SU for ratifying the society in the first place and any subsequent events held by ReformSoc were met with student protest.”
So yes, students could set up a Reform Society, but presumably they would face harassment for doing so.
A petition, or a complaint to the SU, is surely the exercise of free speech?
Stop being so juvenile. If students are petitioning the SU against ratifying a society for supporters of Reform, then it is an obvious free-speech concern.
Apologies, professor. But surely action taken by the SU as a result of a petition (should there be any) has the potential to be a free speech concern, whereas a petition or any other expression of lawful speech does not?
Unless you feel that you should be able to claim “free speech” any time someone doesn’t like you?
A lawful petition in itself isn’t a free-speech violation. But the intention behind such petitions is to pressure the SU into deratifying a society or blocking external speakers. Are you arguing that one should not be concerned about an as-yet-unrealised menace to free speech?
In this case, the petition seems to be about denying the free speech of other people. It therefore seems to be a “free speech for me but not for thee” case.
You also don’t mention the second part (“any subsequent events held by ReformSoc were met with student protest”). Protesting every event organised by a society does seem to cross the line into harassment.
Peaceful protests, including picketing, sit ins and demonstrations, are not illegal nor harassment, no matter how repeated they are (Public Order Act). If the students protesting ReformSoc aren’t inciting violence against members or disrupting ‘significantly’, there is no legal issue.
If it’s the university I’m thinking of, I can say quite confidently that the protests never crossed that line, and that, since the petition was not enacted and the society still exists and runs events, no free speech was actually infringed. While the morals/ethics of it can be debated, legally there’s no issue even in the case you’ve cited.
Protestb is a freedom of speech right, not harassment.
So protesting outside an abortion clinic would be fine?
The government doesn’t think so. Within 150 metres the following are prohibited:
Handing out anti-abortion leaflets or literature.
Displaying graphic images or protest signs.
Holding “vigils” or shouting at patients and staff.
Silent Prayer.
Two tier.
I believe you should read up on your Public Order Act. Here’s the guidance:
The offence applies to any activity that is done with the intent of, or reckless as to whether it has the effect of:
(a) influencing a person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services;
(b) obstructing or impeding someone’s access to, or provision or facilitation of services at, an abortion clinic; or
(c) causing harassment, alarm or distress to anyone in connection with a decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of services at the abortion clinic.
2.2 The offence requires someone to intend or be reckless to causing at least one of the effects above, so those holding pro-life views are not committing an offence by merely being within the Safe Access Zone. In addition to assessing the relevant activity, due regard must be given to the intention and motive of anyone suspected of committing an offence.
Handing out graphic photos of fetuses is attempting to influence someone’s decision to access medical care. Shouting at staff and patients is intimidating someone for getting medical care. Silent prayer is not illegal? More importantly… There is a HUGE difference between a woman accessing a medical facility and a political group being lobbied. You kind of sign up to be lobbied when you’re in a political space. You don’t sign up to be lobbied when you go to a sexual health clinic.
This is very straightforward.
Freedom of Speech does not include a right to impose yourself on unwilling forums.
A decision not to offer an invitation is also a freedom of speech right.
Nice job misgendering Zia Yusuf! I’m sure WokeHE (sorry WonkHe) might be the next target of Reform with mistakes like that!
Just because Zia Yusuf claims to be a man doesn’t mean I have to agree. Or so Reform UK would suggest.
The absolute *hilarity* of Reform getting their arse in their hands about a university led by Edmund Burke (the 18th century edition of whom was the original reform conservatism philosopher)! Philosophy will eat itself…
Interesting threat to Universities in this in general, as Sarah Ponchin isn’t an MP even within 50 miles of Bangor.
Expect more of this, its certainty something Labour and the Greens should focus in during the by election especially in the city centre half of the ward.
I mean in fairness, MPs do talks well away from their constituency all the time. That’s not a weirdness – universities host these things.
The very idea that one could use legal threats to compel a volunteer-run society to host your speaking event (and presumably do all the labour to organise and promote it – again, volunteers!!!) is comical to me.
The Reform stunt would have fallen flat on its face if the Debating Society had politely refused the request. Unfortunately, the society couldn’t resist the temptation to issue an anti-free speech manifesto.
I just don’t see how this is a freedom of speech issue. Reform can hire a room at Bangor and organise their own event if they want. They can’t compel a group of students to want them there and assist with the organisation for free. And those students are perfectly within their own rights to use their own freedom of speech to explain why they don’t want Reform there! Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you have to be polite when you say no, or give no reason out of fear of offending anyone.
Indeed. It does seem that this is precisely the kind of moral outrage might have been hoping to generate. They asked a student society to invite them. When they said no, they shouted about it from the rooftops rather than find another student society, the SU, or the University itself and try to compel them to invite them. It does seem rather like performance politics to try and portray all universities as bastions of equality rather than an actual attempt to speak at an institution.
Politically, we need to make sure that Reform are known as the ignorant, dishonest, authoritarian, unthinking numpties that they are.
Most of our media are compliant, and it is important for the message to be out and about.
I have a Reform MP. I KNOW who they are. Mine needed an asylum hotel locally to stir up prejudice and frighten the electorate. There weren’t any, so he just made one up for his social media feeds.
LOL. A collection of gormless, attention-seeking numpties.
Who knew?
Let’s be clear. Sarah Pochin and Jack Anderton reached out with the precise hope of triggering this exact reaction so that they and their party could play the victim once again. It cannot possibly be considered a denial of free speech if someone makes an unsolicited offer to speak somewhere and receives a negative response. I wonder how many other societies they have made the same offer to? If I were to offer to deliver a q&a to Reform members and they said “no, thanks, we don’t want woke, lefty types spewing their nonsense at us” I might consider that rude or short-sighted but I could hardly claim they had infringed my free speech.
Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code requires “due impartiality”. This is why the right-wing GB News often has woke, lefty types on. Is the Ofcom Broadcasting Code a “denial of free speech”? Should a University Debating and Political Society be hold to the same standard as a broadcaster and be required to be “due impartial”?
Are university debating societies regulated by Ofcom? When did this happen?
That’s clearly not what I wrote. What I wrote is the question: should university debating societies be held to a similar standard as Ofcom hold broadcasters?
No
Utterly irrelevant to my point, which suggested a specific example that did not mention GB News at all. My point was very simple – if someone makes an offer to speak to someone who has not requested such an offer then they cannot claim that their free speech has been infringed if that person receiving the offer rejects it. That ought to be obvious. I was not talking about whether or not Reform would be likely to accept my offer. I was simply pointing out that if I made such an offer to deliver a q&a to them and they rejected that offer I would not consider this an infringement of my free speech.
Your article is poorly presented, with a incoherent attitude, presumably written by someone with an agenda, rather than unbiased reporting.
The inabiliy to even get a simple fact such as the sex correct of Zia Yusaf (who is a “HE” not a”SHE”) underlines the shoddy reporting.
I believe at best 5/10, must do better.
Thanks Bob. You have spotted my carefully hidden agenda in wanting to set out the law correctly as it stands.
The university is totally wrong. They’re living in a leftie echo chamber. They should have their taxpayers funding cut as the majority of taxpayers are Reform supporters.
Did you actually read the article?
A student society is not a university. A university and a students’ union are two different legal entities and have different funding models under the law. This society doesn’t have ANY speakers/guests at all, it’s not actually the purpose of what they’re doing.
Also, most taxpayers in Wales are actually Plaid Cymru supporters. Bangor is in Wales. Bangor is funded by the Welsh government through Medr, the Welsh HE regulator. Because it’s Welsh. Reform didn’t even podium in the constituency in 2024 – Labour, then Plaid, then Tory, and the “Brexit Party” came dead last in 2019.
“…the majority of taxpayers are Reform supporters…”
“…leftie echo chamber…”
So we’ve now got Reform sock puppets infecting Wonkhe as well have we?
As loathe as I am to criticise my beloved WonkHE, especially in this context, but the claim that ‘It’s lamentably easy to wind up Reform politicians with statements like that’ does not seem fair to me. In said statement they are called all sorts of phobics, are implied to be motivated by hate, and there is what looks to me like a call to no platform them (I am not saying this rises to anything like a violation of free speech). You can understand the frustration and anger perhaps (I can anyway), without agreeing with the response?