MINISTERS will today recommend a "universal code" on censorship be rolled out to stop universities stifling free speech.
In the biggest Government intervention on the issue for more than 30 years the Universities Minister Sam Gyimah will tell campuses to protect free speech and stamp out "institutional hostility" to views that are unfashionable or unpopular.
It comes after increasing alarm at policies such as "safe spaces", "no platforming" and other measures used to block controversial guest speakers and gagging unpopular views to avoid causing offence to "snowflake" students.
A survey of 115 universities found 55 per cent “actively censor speech,” while 39 per cent “stifle speech through excessive regulation”.
There have been reports of speakers, debates, literature and organisations being opposed or criticised, often by student unions, societies or specific groups of students.
Mr Sam Gyimah will hold a summit with uni bosses today – and will warn that higher education institutions must take fresh action to protect free speech.
He said he is calling on universities and colleges "to stamp out the 'institutional hostility' to unfashionable views that have emerged in some student societies".
The minister will urge institutions to work with the Government "following recent reports of a rise in so-called 'safe spaces' and 'no-platform' policies that have appeared on campuses".
It is understood that Thursday's summit, which will be attended by university and student leaders among others, is the first step to drawing up new universal rules on free speech that will eventually be used by all institutions.
This is the first time the Government has taken action on the issue since the free speech duty was introduced as part of an Education Act in 1986, the the Department for Education (DfE) said.
Mr Gyimah said: "A society in which people feel they have a legitimate right to stop someone expressing their views on campus simply because they are unfashionable or unpopular is rather chilling.
"There is a risk that overzealous interpretation of a dizzying variety of rules is acting as a brake on legal free speech on campus.
"That is why I am bringing together leaders from across the higher education sector to clarify the rules and regulations around speakers and events to prevent bureaucrats or wreckers on campus from exploiting gaps for their own ends."
Alistair Jarvis, chief executive of vice-chancellors' group Universities UK, said: "Universities are committed to promoting and protecting free speech within the law.
"Tens of thousands of speaking events are put on every year across the country, the majority pass without incident.
"A small number of flashpoints do occasionally occur, on contentious or controversial issues, but universities do all they can to protect free speech so events continue."
A report published by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in March argued that free speech on campus is being hampered by factors such as intolerant attitudes and unacceptable behaviour, red tape and a lack of clear guidance.
MOST READ IN POLITICS
'WE'RE ALLOWED TO PARTY' 
'Tipsy' No10 aide 'taunted cops after lockdown-busting booze-up'
Liz Truss to risk trade war with EU by letting Belfast blow up border deal
Heavily censored Sue Gray report on No10 parties 'to be released next week'
Boris Johnson to hold showdown talks with Vladimir Putin over Ukraine
Sir Michael Barber, chairman of the new Office for Students, which will have powers to sanction institutions that do not uphold free speech, has previously said that university codes on the subject can be too complicated.
He suggested that while institutions do need to think about issues surrounding free speech on campus, there is a danger that rules can be too complex.
"No-platforming" is a practice in which a group or individuals seen to have unacceptable or offensive views are banned from taking part in a public debate or meeting, or when others refuse to share a platform with them, while "safe space" policies aim to ensure all students feel able to express themselves and are protected from views and language they find offensive, as well as discrimination.
Source: Read Full Article
