Magdalen College, Oxford, has found itself at the center of a row about free speech (Photo by Carl … [+]
Getty Images
Oxford students have found themselves caught up in the culture wars after voting to remove a portrait of the Queen from their common room.
Although he has made championing free speech in universities a touchstone issue, the U.K.’s Education Secretary is one of a series of politicians and commentators who have condemned the decision, taken on the basis that the image is a symbol of “recent colonial history”.
But if free speech means anything, it means tolerating the views of those who disagree with us, however much we dislike those views.
Graduate students at Magdalen College waded into a political storm after voting to remove the picture, which has been on the common room wall for eight years.
Magdalen is one of Oxford’s most prestigious colleges, founded in the 15th century and with alumni including Cardinal Wolsey, Oscar Wilde and C.S. Lewis.
According to the motion discussed at Monday’s meeting, the proposal to remove the portrait was put forward on the grounds it would make the common room more welcoming, recognizing that “for some students, depictions of the monarch and the British monarchy represent recent colonial history”.
Ten students voted in favour of taking down the picture and two were against, with five abstaining.
But the relative triviality of the issue, and the small number of students involved, have not stopped it from spiralling into a furious political row, with commentators wading in to condemn the decision.
Foremost among them is Education Secretary Gavin Williamson, who described the decision in a tweet as “simply absurd”, adding that “She is the Head of State and a symbol of what is best about the UK. During her long reign she has worked tirelessly to promote British values of tolerance, inclusivity & respect around the world.”
But Williamson, perhaps seeing a chance to try to salve a reputation battered by a series of mis-steps throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, has portrayed himself as a champion of free speech in universities, putting forward plans to stamp out “unlawful silencing.”
His proposals will give universities a duty to protect free speech, and, for the first time, extend this duty to student unions, who will be required to “take reasonably practicable steps to ensure lawful freedom of speech”.
Launching the plans, Williamson said: “It is a basic human right to be able to express ourselves freely and take part in rigorous debate. Our legal system allows us to articulate views which others may disagree with as long as they don’t meet the threshold of hate speech or inciting violence. This must be defended, nowhere more so than within our world-renowned universities.”
As well as the opprobrium of columnists, Magdalen President Dinah Rose revealed the college had been on the receiving end of “obscene and threatening” messages as a result of the students’ decision.
In a series of tweets, Rose said the college stood squarely behind “free speech and political debate”, and the students’ right to sometimes provoke the older generation, adding that: “Looks like that isn’t so hard to do these days.”
The row comes just days after England cricketer Ollie Robinson was suspended following the emergence of racist and sexist tweets he sent as a teenager.
The decision to suspend him was criticized by Prime Minister Boris Johnson – himself no stranger to making offensive remarks – as a disproportionate response to comments made when Robinson was a teenager.
It seems the generosity extended to a young cricketer – and that expected by the Prime Minister when it comes to his own past – is apparently not available when students are involved.
But valuing free speech means not just protecting the right to air views we agree with: it means protecting everybody’s right to have their say.
