Universities should promote independent thought and free speech, but also ensure the debate is respectful

Freedom of speech can never be absolute: there are some things that should not be said, not for the ideas they embody or advocate, but rather in the way that the points are made

Jo Johnson said universities must uphold everyone’s freedom of speech (Getty)

In a speech today, higher education minister Jo Johnson has told universities that they must stop “no-platforming” speakers who hold views some might find offensive, and that “universities should be places that open minds, not close them, where ideas can be freely challenged”.

You can have a debate about the rights and wrongs of a government minister giving directions to universities; you can disagree with the plan for an Office for Students, the new regulatory structure for the universities proposed by the Government and set out in a consultation document last October.

But the principle that there should be open debate about the whole range of ideas that tussle for attention in our modern world – from science to history, literature, philosophy, religion and so on – is one that must surely stand.

The quote, popularly attributed to Voltaire, but actually a paraphrase of his ideas by the English writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall, makes the point succinctly: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

There is however one proviso: how you say it matters. Debate should be open but it must be conducted with courtesy, order and decency. That courtesy is sadly lacking, in many walks of life far beyond the halls of the universities, as anyone tapping into social media can see in an instant.

Freedom of speech can never be absolute. Hate is never right. There are some things that should not be said, not for the ideas they embody or advocate, but rather in the way that the points are made. All societies have mainstream views that must be challenged, but it is reasonable to demand they should be challenged within the norms of that society.

Ultimately, debate is vital. You don’t have to refer to the classic cases where an unpopular idea proves correct – Galileo’s observation that the earth was a sphere, for example – to grasp the value of open debate.

“Groupthink”, when a particular course of conduct becomes so embedded in the decision-making process that the views of dissenters are pushed aside and leads to disaster, is evident in many areas.

There are many examples of this in geopolitics: the ramping-up of the US support of the South Vietnamese government, the war in Iraq, and the lead-up to the banking crash of 2008 are all examples of policies where people who urged a different course of action were either ignored, or intimidated into silence.

But there are smaller ones in day-to-day life. Companies make bad investment decisions if the board is composed of too many like-minded people, diversity of ideas arguably matters more than diversity of background, though often the two go together.

Universities rightly cherish their independence from government. This principle has served Britain, its students, and the students from abroad, well. Whichever ranking you choose there is no doubt that UK universities are high in the global league tables: at least two in the top 10, four or five in the top 20. Further down the league there are many points of excellence, but inevitably there are laggards too.

Both the universities and the Government need to cooperate to use the Office for Students as a way of improving their performance still further, not just to score higher in the league tables or produce higher-ranked research, but rather to equip all students to cope better with the complexities and stresses of modern life.

As for the rest of us, we need to remember that reasoned debate is vital in every aspect of our lives, and that it needs to be conducted with courtesy as well as rigour.