Written evidence from Cambridge University Students (FSU0072)

Summary

1 This submission highlights some of the threats to freedom of speech on campuses, with a summary of student experiences of the Prevent duty’s implementation by Cambridge University’s management, as well as its impact on human rights, as set out in the British Human Rights Act (HRA) of 1998.

Is there concrete evidence that free speech is being suppressed in universities?

2 There is clear evidence that free speech is being suppressed at the University of Cambridge, particularly through implementation of the Prevent duty. Two of the most recent cases are illustrative.

2.1 In mid-October 2017, a group of Cambridge students and staff organised a panel event entitled ‘BDS and the Globalised Struggle for Palestinian Human Rights’, to be held at the University’s Mill Lane Lecture Theatres. The headline speaker was Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and a prominent Palestinian human rights defender, who was recently defended by Amnesty International from intimidation by the Israeli government.[1] Other advertised speakers included an Israeli-Jewish lecturer from Cambridge’s Faculty of English, and the director of the anti-poverty charity, War on Want.

2.2 The room booking was confirmed, and the event publicly promoted for over a week. On November 7th, one day before the event, University officials contacted event organisers demanding that the designated chair of the panel, a respected Palestinian academic—Dr Ruba Salih, a Reader at SOAS, University of London—was replaced by an “independent chair”, in this case the University’s director of communications. It was strongly implied that if these conditions were not met the event would be cancelled.

2.3 The panel went ahead, but after the academic in question removed from their position as chair. Subsequent correspondence with university management, as well as information obtained largely through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, shows this decision to have been taken a) by the university’s Prevent Referral Group, the body with whom responsibility for implementation of the Prevent duty sits and b) as a result of external political pressure.

2.4 Senior University of Cambridge managers were prompted to intervene in the matter after receiving a letter (available on request) from a member of the House of Lords, that was sent directly to the Vice Chancellor on the 4th of November. The letter contained a range of libellous accusations against the speakers, notably claiming Dr Ruba Salih was unfit to chair the panel due to her participation at another academic conference. The peer in question, a prominent member of UK Lawyers for Israel, a pro-Israel advocacy group, demanded “independent chairmanship” of the event, citing paragraph 11 of the Prevent duty guidance for HE institutions. It continued: “If this is not accepted then it would be right to cancel the meeting”.

2.5 This letter was accompanied by a volume of emails sent through an online form created by the advocacy group StandWithUs, which has a close association with, and receives funding from, the Israeli government.[2]

2.6 Internal correspondence between University managers (available on request), displays a worrying susceptibility to this external political pressure, along with a willingness to uncritically accept what are (unfounded) racially and politically discriminatory assertions about academics and human rights activists. In an email to the ranking pro-Vice Chancellor on 6 November, the university’s Prevent lead wrote: “it is clearly a panel which only has one perspective and the chair could not be described as being independent”. Immediately prior to the panel taking place, the event’s organisers were interrogated on whether the designated chair “had the same political views” as other panelists.

3 At Cambridge, this discriminatory and inappropriate application of the Prevent duty is not confined to this single high-profile incident. Another recent example occurred when  a student booked a room in their college to hold a planning event for a graduate-student research trip to Israel/Palestine. They were persistently questioned by college administrators as to the purpose of the room booking, asking why it was necessary to hold a meeting in order to plan the trip. They were told they would not be allowed to distribute leaflets in the college promoting the event. When asked for justification for these restrictions on ordinary activity, the Prevent duty was cited.

3.1 Last year, two colleges coordinated to cancel a student-organised debate on ‘Islam in Europe’ One of the speakers had been subjected to accusations of supporting terrorism in The Telegraph, leading college administrators to claim they were sympathetic to Daesh. One senior tutor cited their legal duty to stop radicalisation under Prevent.

4 Furthermore, the censorship of Dr Ruba Salih followed on from almost identical events at the London School of Economics (LSE) the previous evening, where the academic chair of a panel on a similar topic was removed on the basis of signing a petition in favour of Palestinian human rights, also following external political pressure. In this case as well, there was correspondence between the communications departments of Cambridge and LSE, whilst the former formulated their approach.

4.1 Similar suppression of free speech occurred at the University of Manchester in February 2017, when management removed academics from panels and renamed an event following pressure from the Israeli Embassy, which the documentation, received through FOIs, shows (available upon request).

If there is a problem, in what ways is free speech being suppressed? By whom? What are the causes? Is any problem increasing?

5 The case of the November 8th panel at Cambridge demonstrates a worrying trend in the suppression of the freedom of expression. The actions taken by the University of Cambridge appear to violate Articles 10 and 14 of the HRA.

5.1 Article 10 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”.

5.2 Article 14, on the prohibition of discrimination, adds: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin…”.

5.3 As shown in these cases, freedom of expression is being suppressed by senior University administrators in a manner that is both racially and politically discriminatory. Crucially, these breaches are initiated through intensive external political pressure demanding an application of the Prevent duty. By following such demands, University managers are thus violating students’ rights, and demonstrating a profound ignorance of their statutory duties to uphold basic human rights and civil liberties of students.

5.4 A causal factor in the suppression of free speech at the University of Cambridge and elsewhere is the dangerous way in which staff are trained to implement the Prevent duty, resulting in its misapplication to non-extreme and non-controversial debates. In the training course delivered at Cambridge and provided by HEFCE, staff are asked to consider Criticism of UK foreign policy’, ‘Vocal support for the creation of a Palestinian state’, ‘Opposition to Israeli settlements in the West Bank’ and ‘Opposition to Prevent’ among a list of positions listed under the ominous heading: ‘Extremist views’.

5.5 Staff taking the training are assured in the subsequent slide that holding such views “may be legitimate”, so long as their expression does not lead to intimidation, harassment or violence. It is quite explicitly stated, however, that, “Relevant higher education bodies also need to risk assess and manage events where these or similar views may be expressed”. This edict to staff, with no basis in the Counter Terrorism and Security Act (2015), actively encourages the surveillance and monitoring of events on campus which take critical stances on questions of UK foreign policy, and practices of the Israeli military occupation and settlements. Several of the viewpoints University staff are asked to monitor and risk assess are in line with international law and stance of the British government, and create a chilling effect on much needed democratic debate about foreign policy at universities.

5.6 This chilling effect leads disproportionately to Muslim, International and BME students feeling unable to participate in debate, or even discuss the problems they might be facing. Combined with a wider context where the University has failed to consistently challenge hateful speakers, it is clear that freedom of speech is not a right enjoyed by all on campus.

Conclusion

6 The problems cited above are not specific to Cambridge, and are unfortunately proliferating across the country. This demonstrates that the university must undertake transparent and consultative reviews of their application of the Prevent duty, and its serious impact on national legislation that protects free speech.

20 December 2017