Vice-chancellor of the University of Reading, Robert Van de Noort, told a seminar at the Houses of Parliament in 2024 that universities need “to be more courageous and actively and explicitly promote a culture of diversity of thought” to overcome an “echo chamber” that isolates academic freedom and expression of students on campus.
However, there are a certain number of myths surrounding censorship and what it actually means for campus life. For instance, according to a study by Kings College London, 80% of students feel that they are free to express their views at University with 70% of students believing that academics are free to express their views on campus too. This suggests that the idea of students and staff regularly self-censoring themselves can be cogently and clearly counter-argued.
University Students and Staff, self-censoring themselves, is not the only myth surrounding campus censorship. The idea that universities have gone ‘woke’ by placing trigger warnings on teaching materials is not a way of removing freedom of speech but instead is a way of encouraging academic freedom and expression. Given that to debate and discuss topical issues, students and staff will need to be exposed to views and content they may find offensive or difficult.
By including trigger and content warnings, universities are promoting freedom of speech as it allows students to engage in discussions on difficult topics whilst remaining sensitive to those vulnerable to such content.
Therefore, including trigger and content warnings is a way to provide advance warnings about any texts or information that may be distressing. In doing so, it means books do not need to be banned and students as well as staff can engage in debates and discussion on difficult topics whilst remaining sensitive to those vulnerable to such content due to past traumatic experiences. As a result, this can be seen as a way of promoting freedom of speech by remaining aware and sensitive to people’s well-being.
Despite these myths surrounding the censorship of university curricula and self-censorship by academics and students alike, there are areas of university life that can be seen to be becoming increasingly censored. For example, there have been countless protests across universities recently to ban certain guest speakers, who are seen to be promoting hateful propaganda.
This New Norm regarding censorship isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Oxford University’s LGBTQ+ Soc condemned Oxford events that involved ‘gender-critical’ speakers, Journalist Helen Joyce and Professor. Michael Biggs. Kathleen Stock’s talk at the Oxford Union caused protests and outcry from LGBTQ+ activists due to her opposition to transgender self-identification and transphobic views. This illustrates how certain individuals are gradually being removed from university life and how campaigning against the promotion of certain views is becoming the New Norm.
But this New Norm regarding censorship isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Students and Academics shouldn’t be made to feel like their place of study is promoting certain extremist views. So, censoring the likes of Stock, Joyce and Briggs who are promoting contentious and outdated ideologies is something many will welcome and is something that can be seen as encouraging a more inclusive and safe environment where academic freedom can play out as opposed to killing freedom of speech.
In short, there are many myths surrounding censorship on university campuses. Universities becoming more self-aware and sensitive is a welcomed change, using trigger warnings for sensitive content on the university curricula and protesting against certain guest speakers is helping to turn campuses’ into a place of safety and a place that promotes self-expression and freedom as opposed to that of an “echo chamber”.