Why the student debating society in Bangor, and Reform UK, are both wrong.

When I was a student I was a strong supporter of Free Speech (within the law) and opponent of the so called "No platform" policy. I supported a private member's bill proposed by Fred Sylvester MP to make it unlawful for student unions or the higher education establishment's authorities to stop a group of students inviting a speaker because the people implementing such a ban disagreed with the speaker's views.

A measure very like the Fred Sylvester bill did eventually become law as the

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 (click on link for details of the act.)

I strongly support that act.

The current committee of the Debating and Political Society at Bangor University, who may or may not have broken that law but were certainly very unwise, have walked into a Reform UK trap by turning down a request by two Reform UK members of parliament to speak to the society.

That in itself was entirely within their rights, but they then put themselves firmly in the wrong by issuing a statement about their decision which set out political grounds for rejecting the invitation and could easily be read as if they had banned Reform UK from the University (which the Debating Society committee have no authority whatsoever do so.)

Reform UK in turn have threatened that an incoming Reform government would retaliate against a decision taken by a committee consisting of a handful of students by cutting off the £30 million annual state funding of the entire university.

It must be said that this is not the scenario that people like me who campaigned for that act were trying to put right. We wanted to address the problem where there is a group of students at an institution of learning who DO want to hear from a speaker who would put forward a lawful point of view, and another body, most often the student union, tries to stop that invitation being given or accepted because they disagree with the views of the speaker.

Suppose for a moment that the Bangor society had replied to the Reform MPs along these lines ...

"We organise DEBATES, not platforms for any one particular party: we've never put on a question and answer session with just Conservative MPs or just Labour MPs."  (I'm assuming, of course, that this is the case.) We appreciate, however, and will certainly bear in mind your kind offer to come and speak to use, and we hope that next time we organise a debate on a subject on which Reform UK might have a contribution we can come back to you with an invitation."

Such a reply would have been entirely reasonable, completely consistent with free speech and would certainly not have contravened the 2023 act.

Instead the silly muppets at the Debating and Political society released a statement which absolutely uses the language of no platform:

Well, surprise surprise: Reform UK (who you can bet your life were secretly delighted that these idiotic students had given them the opportunity to pose as victims) have come back with a threat to cut off all public funding for the whole University.

Reform UK's semi-house-rained rottweiler Zia Yusuf blasted away on X:

 

Give me strength. No, Zia, Bangor Uni hasn't banned you. A committee of a few very silly undergraduates have made a statement they have no authority to make.

There are bound to be students at Bangor who support Reform UK, even after today's threat. If there isn't already a Reform student society there, I doubt if it would be difficult to set one up. If Reform had any sense, they would organise that and then arrange for that society to invite Reform MPs to speak to them, with all students at the university able to attend. If Bangor University student union were stupid enough to try to stop that invitation, that would be a clear breach of the 2023 act and Reform could seek appropriate legal remedies.

Threatening to shut down an entire university, costing hundreds of people their jobs, because of the actions of a dozen or so students who will long since have graduated and left that university by the next general election when Reform might, if elected, have a chance to implement that revenge is as childish, and as contrary to free speech and democracy, as the actions of the students who Zia Yusuf rightly criticises.