SPC GM TT20 week 2 motion

This JCR regrets Oxford SU’s adoption of the Academic Hate Speech motion

Proposer: Theo Jupp

Seconder: Jade Calder

 

This JCR Notes that:

  • The originators of the SU motion entitled ‘Academic Hate Speech’, passed on Thursday of First Week, sought to compensate for the shortcomings of current legislation that criminalises hate speech
  • Many courses and papers mandate the consumption of ableist, transphobic, racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise hateful material in an academic context
  • The Academic Hate Speech motion compelled the SU’s VP Access and Academic Affairs and VP Welfare & Equal Opportunities to ‘condemn the use of hateful material in mandatory teaching’ and resolved to adopt a new policy: ‘Protection of Transgender, Non-binary, Disabled, Working-class and Women* Students from Hatred in University Contexts’
  • The policy mentioned in the point above advocates that ‘the University should not require students to attend lectures, tutorials, seminars etc., or set examination content that would amount to criminal hate speech against a group’, and urges the University to ‘publish guidance to course convenors requiring them to take into account the impact including prejudicial articles has on mental health of protected groups before they finalise the course’
  • Academics affiliated to the University and its Colleges have condemned the motion as a danger to academic freedom, variously calling it ‘censorship’, ‘a low point in Oxford academic life’, and ‘a grave mistake’
  • The University has reaffirmed its aim to ‘foster freedom of expression within a framework of robust civility’ as part of a statement reproduced in full in Appendix 1 below.

This JCR Believes that:

  • The motion passed by the SU Council, whilst well-intentioned, is deeply flawed
  • It is not the place of the SU to attempt to influence the content of courses or papers in such a broad and indiscriminate manner
  • The SU should continue its work to prevent the occurrence of hatred within our University and protect the victims of hate targeted at gender identity, disability, race, religion, nationality, socio-economic background, and sexual orientation
  • The study, criticism and research of hateful material is an essential part of academic process, especially with regards to combating the perverse ideologies of which it is a product
  • There are of course instances in which the compulsory study of hateful material can prove damaging to a student’s mental health; that such instances are best dealt with on a case-by-case basis, in a manner commensurate with the needs of the student affected
  • The provisions of the ‘Protection...’ policy outlined in point 4 take no account of the significant variations in the use of hateful material from subject to subject, urging a one-size-fits-all approach which could be detrimental from the point of view of academic rigour.

This JCR Resolves to:

  • Mandate the President of the JCR to express in writing to the SU Council the JCR’s deep regret at the passing of the flawed Academic Hate Speech motion
  • Commend the University’s commitment to academic freedom of speech in a civil, respectful and inclusive environment
  • Encourage the SU to continue its work in finding ways of combating hate speech within our University.
  • Reaffirm its solidarity with the victims of hate speech predicated on one’s gender identity, race, religion, nationality, socio-economic background, and sexual orientation.

Appendix 1

‘Statement on the Importance of Free Speech

Free speech is the lifeblood of a university. It enables the pursuit of knowledge. It helps us approach truth. It allows students, teachers and researchers to become better acquainted with the variety of beliefs, theories and opinions in the world. Recognising the vital importance of free expression for the life of the mind, a university may make rules concerning the conduct of debate but should never prevent speech that is lawful.

Inevitably, this will mean that members of the University are confronted with views that some find unsettling, extreme or offensive. The University must therefore foster freedom of expression within a framework of robust civility. Not all theories deserve equal respect. A university values expertise and intellectual achievement as well as openness. 

But, within the bounds set by law, all voices or views which any member of our community considers relevant should be given the chance of a hearing. Wherever possible, they should also be exposed to evidence, questioning and argument. As an integral part of this commitment to freedom of expression, we will take steps to ensure that all such exchanges happen peacefully. 

With appropriate regulation of the time, place and manner of events, neither speakers nor listeners should have any reasonable grounds to feel intimidated or censored. It is this understanding of the central importance and specific roles of free speech in a university that will underlie the detailed procedures of the University of Oxford.’