That’s Debatable!

Jan was fortunate enough to join ‘Academics for Academic Freedom’ (AFAF) at their annual conference on Saturday 23rd November and we begin by discussing how important that organisation has become in emboldening academics to fight for their freedom in the university context. The public row around Non Crime Hate Incidents (NCHI) has continued to rumble on, despite Essex police dropping its investigation into Allison Pearson. The Telegraph this week reported that Yvette Cooper is committed to reversing the Tories’ decision to downgrade the monitoring of the incidents, specifically in relation to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, so that they can be logged by police. The think tank ‘Policy Exchange’ has now added its voice to the debate with the release of a new report entitled, “Non-Crime Hate Incidents: A chilling distraction from the public’s priorities on policing”. We move on to discuss an item in The Guardian, which highlights how an anti-racism campaigner’s London book events had to be cancelled amid the threat of far-right violence, a story that shows the need for free speech consistency. Next up, as reported in The Times, a consultation from the Bar Standards Board (BSB) which proposes bringing barristers’ equality obligations into line with solicitors in England and Wales has triggered a row with the Bar Council. We recently hosted a panel of eminent legal experts to grapple with the merits of the Bar Standards Board’s proposals, which you can watch here. We have also written a response to the consultation, which can be found here. We end with the news that a poster promoting Fern Brady’s stand-up tour has been ruled as ‘offensive’ to Christians by the Advertising Standards Authority. The debate resembles many of the arguments that were played out in 1979 following the release of ‘Life of Brian’. ‘That's Debatable!’  is edited by Jason Clift.

Allison Pearson’s visit from Essex Police on Remembrance Sunday has reignited the debate around the state of free expression in the UK. While some confusion remains around the precise details of that doorstep conversation, it has nevertheless thrown the thorny issue of ‘Non-Crime Hate Incidents’ (or NCHI) sharply back into the public eye. The Times, for example, has discovered that police have been recording NCHI against children as young as nine, this despite paragraph 36 of the new Code of Conduct explicitly recommending them not to do so. Our Informative Guide sets out how you can find out if your local police force has recorded an NCHI against you and what you can do to get it deleted – log in to your FSU account to take a look. Control of language continues across the country and we were dismayed to read in The Telegraph that the Welsh government’s anti-racism action plan aims to change the beliefs and behaviour of the white majority. Official reports have even advised creating “dog free areas” to boost inclusion. We move on to discuss an important article by two Oxford students who each testify to the endemic fear of cancellation across the student campus. This follows the tragic death of Alexander Rogers and the inquest’s ruling that the student was the victim of “pervasive cancel culture”. Professor Kathleen Stock has written a very thoughtful piece in Unherd on how universities are teaching students to shame. Finally, Jan discusses Wendy Houston’s show, “Watch It!” and reports on Sunday’s march on Wembley for the teenage female footballer banned following a transgender row. ‘That's Debatable!’  is edited by Jason Clift.

When it comes to American politics, it’s probably fair to describe the events of the last seven days as ‘historic’. We begin, therefore, by asking the question, “What does the election of President Trump mean for free expression?” – and it turns out that things are perhaps more nuanced than either side would care to admit. While Trump’s classically liberal instincts sometimes serve to protect the First Amendment rights of all Americans, too often they are overridden by his determination to fight culture wars or by a fixation with settling personal vendettas. We begin today’s episode by discussing these arguments, which Freddie Attenborough has also put together for an excellent article in The Critic. Back home in the UK, The Times reports how several of Britain’s most eminent authors have told ministers that literary freedom is being “eroded” by their failure to stand up to cancel culture on university campuses. In their letter, they accuse the government of failing to safeguard “humane and liberal values”. Those signing the letter include the novelists Ian McEwan, Lady Antonia Fraser and Lionel Shriver. They have been joined by the philosopher AC Grayling, the actor and author Stephen Fry and the former poet laureate Sir Andrew Motion. Finally, an article in Spiked caught our attention this week, which pointed out various ways in which Ofcom appears to be applying different standards to GB News than to mainstream media outlets. This is especially worrying at a time when the Online Safety Act has granted Ofcom new authority over not only traditional broadcasting, but also social-media companies and online streaming services. ‘That's Debatable!’  is edited by Jason Clift.

A striking chart that we’ve included in November’s newsletter shows how the FSU has surged from just under 14,000 members at the beginning of July, to 20,100 members at the end of October – a percentage increase of 43%. As our graph highlights, it won’t be long before we’re bigger than Aslef and the National Union of Journalists. There’s good news to pass on in relation to the Judicial Review of Bridget Phillipson’s decision to pause the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. It was reported by the Telegraph over the weekend that the FSU has now been granted permission to appeal the move, with a judicial hearing set to take place in the High Court on January 23rd. In a legal document confirming permission to appeal the move, a High Court judge said it was in the “public interest” for the issue to be resolved promptly. Worryingly, though, Sir Keir Starmer has now resurrected the Football Governance Bill, which fell by the wayside during the last Parliament. Among the reams of red tape it will impose on football clubs is a requirement that they submit a “corporate governance statement” to the newly created Independent Football Regulator saying what action they’re taking on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI). Our concern is that this requirement will normalise what happened to our member, Linzi Smith, with tens of thousands of fans banned from attending games simply because their political views put them at odds with their club’s EDI policy. Finally, we briefly discuss our response to the latest consultation issued by the Institute & Faculty of Actuaries on the inclusion of EDI requirements in the Actuaries Code before deciding definitively not to speculate on who might win the imminent presidential election in the USA. ‘That's Debatable!’  is edited by Jason Clift.