The freedom with which universities should be allowed to monitor the existence of up and coming student societies creates a complex debate. Universities should foster the flourishing of intellectual debate and academic challenge. Yet a complete monitoring of student society action could lead to restrictions aimed at stifling ideas and movements deemed ‘too controversial’ for a university to align with. This surveillance could lead to an absence of the much needed liberty to intellectually challenge and express your autonomy in student settings. This idea is supported by the famous philosopher and politician John Stuart Mill: ‘to suppress and deny a claimed truth, does not make us infallible’.
While some ideas may be widely accepted as false, they should not be suppressed as our grasp and confidence in the truth is only strengthened by testing it against falsehoods. Yet, the argument that I pose is in complete contradiction to Mill’s point of view. I want to highlight the harm that complete freedom of speech results in, which can lead to the subjugation of minority rights.
Recently the University of Manchester’s students union authorised the formation of a ‘pro-life society’, the aim of which, as explained by its founders, is to stand firmly alongside the anti-abortion stance whilst also expressing a general concern for all ‘other threats to life’. I believe that this concern with ‘threats to life’ poses no actual justification for the society’s existence. If the concern of the three men running this society was truly the atrocious rise of suicide rates in the UK, their society would not be founded upon and named after the principal of restricting bodily autonomy. The argument of caring about ‘all threats to life’ is an easy scapegoat for the further spread of already prominent radical and damaging misogynistic views. The current day rise of pro-life narratives in the media and the general world, proves the larger implications that societies of this nature carry. The political drive to return to traditional hegemonic values is nothing new and is only ever growing. The current political climate of the USA is a clear example of this. Alabama’s criminalisation of abortion across the entire state has resulted in consequences not initially thought out by the all-Republican senate. During the process of IVF, multiple eggs are fertilised and so a number of them are discarded, instantly becoming an act of ‘murder’ grouped under abortion. Since all fertilised cells were declared as living beings with rights by law, IVF as a result, was also effectively outlawed. As the pro-life debate is a prominent topic internationally, the existence of such societies, no matter how small scale they may seem to begin with, translates into the world around us. These ideas become legislation and have ramifications that reach far out of a university campus.
According to the Independent, since the Manchester ‘pro-life’ society’s existence ‘over 15,000 students have signed a petition voicing their concerns about the group’. This staggering number of signatures shows the general consensus of concern that this society has caused through its creation alone. Moreover, female students of the university have publicly stated that they feel stigmatised and unsafe as a result of the society. The threat posed to female students is a safeguarding concern that should be the priority of the university and every other university alongside its governing body. As a result, a complete lack of monitoring, especially in instances of politically charged societies, causes disproportionate harm that the justification of free speech cannot entirely account for.
Manchester University’s student union has spoken out, stating that despite the controversial nature of the ‘pro-life’ society, it would be illegal to reject its application. Here enters the argument of free speech. It would be illegal to reject any university society, despite its harmful implications, as a result of the restrictions that this would pose on personal autonomy and the expression of ideas. The protection of the right to express yourself and communicate your ideas is vital in a democratic society and as a result should translate into the university setting. However, the argument of free speech often treads a very fine line between what is defined to be freedom; but in actuality results in mere despotism of minority rights. In the instance of the Manchester society, its creation has caused far more harm than good, generating fear in female students of the institution. While the society may justify its views through the argument of free speech, the harm that it causes to its direct community is disproportionate to the freedom it claims to express.
As a result, the question of university monitoring is a very nuanced and complicated debate. While on one hand it is clear that complete monitoring of student-led societies brings with it restriction, a complete lack of it allows for extremism to roam free. Governing bodies should not be given the complete freedom to define which groups are ‘too radical’ to exist. Meanwhile they should also be held responsible for monitoring antagonistic individuals. In order to allow free speech to coexist alongside a protection from harmful rhetoric, monitoring by governing bodies is necessary. I believe that the power of monitoring should be in the hands of democratically elected student boards so as to prevent unfair restriction while protecting students from harmful agendas.