As the newly elected president of the Oxford Union, I have the privilege of serving during the Union’s 200th anniversary, and of being its 40th female president. The Union often attracts attention not only across Oxford University, but also around the world for the speakers it hosts. Sometimes, the reactions are of praise and admiration but at other times, these can come in the form of vitriol and abuse hurled at our committee.
I have seen first-hand the impact that this intense pressure can have on students. Throughout my six terms at the Union, I have witnessed six different presidents each take wildly different approaches to inviting speakers — each with the same core value of promoting debate and freedom of speech. Anyone who takes office at the Oxford Union is acutely aware that the decision to host a speaker can result in anything from comments on social media from people around the world, to threats shouted at you across the street.
The issue of whether we can debate and challenge the current state of society should never be contentious
Earlier this year, the Union hosted a debate on same-sex marriage in the Church. We received hundreds of complaints, messages and anonymous Facebook posts from fellow students who were disgusted that this topic was being debated. Crucially, they seemed to overlook the fact that same-sex marriage is not currently permitted within the Church of England and that, therefore, this was a debate on the current stance taken by the Church. The issue of whether we can debate and challenge the current state of society should never be contentious. In a free society, this is our right and our duty. Questioning institutions is exactly how progress happens. By seeking to silence debate, you silence those wanting to push for change. It is for this reason that democracy cannot exist without freedom of speech.
The Union voted overwhelmingly in support of same-sex marriage in the Church and it so happened that less than a week later, the Church of England’s governing body voted to shift its stance on homosexuality. For the first time, Church of England priests are permitted to bless the civil marriages of same-sex couples. This debate was extremely topical and one that I am incredibly proud to have organised. It is extremely important that we continue to uphold and use our freedom of speech to hear from and challenge those who we do not agree with.
However, one cannot support the concept of freedom of speech only when it suits them. Arif Ahmed has been appointed as the UK’s first “free speech czar” and the new Higher Education Act has been passed to protect and promote freedom of speech at universities. However, this was given royal assent just over a week after the Public Order Act brought new restrictions on the right to peacefully protest in the UK. Universities should be spaces that foster critical thought and academic debate. One cannot have the freedom to voice opinions without the freedom to challenge and protest or this then becomes its own attack on free speech.
Most recently, my predecessor, Matthew Dick, made headlines across the globe for his decision to host Kathleen Stock — resulting in an organised protest and several student societies and college junior common rooms issuing statements of condemnation. If we support the right to host controversial speakers and pressing debates, we must also support others’ rights to protest those decisions.
Perhaps the most worrying trend is that it is the issue of freedom of speech itself, not the content of that speech, that is becoming tied up in the culture wars debates of today. Freedom of speech is now being politicised as a tool for one side of the political spectrum to the point where even the writing of this article, a defence of free speech, will be enough to label me as Right-wing (which may be intended as an insult in itself).
The Union has hosted and produced notable figures from all sides of the political spectrum and this is a tradition that I hope to continue during my term as president and beyond. So long as we continue to witness freedom of speech being weaponised as a partisan tool, crackdowns on the right to peacefully protest alongside the freedom to platform, and the abandonment of civil discourse in favour of threats and abuse, we should be very concerned.
