Over the past several months, various political events across the globe have led us – as a society – to stray into a grey area that, in fact, goes against much of the liberal ideology of pluralism, free speech, individualism and democracy that most Western societies are founded upon. This grey area is censorship, or now in its most popular form, banning.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which forms part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and states that ‘any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law’ (1966). Around the same time, there was the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) which requires all member-states to outlaw hate speech and criminalise membership in racist organisations.
Many of us understand these covenants because we understand the harm and divisiveness that comes from hate. We believe in human dignity.
However, recently, the emergence of the ban culture has caused tension. Are we protecting human dignity or denying human rights? Do we ban yoga because it is cultural appropriation, or sombreros because wearing them is casting stereotypes? Where does celebrating and embracing other cultures become insulting and threatening? These are simple stories, but what about the UK’s petition where over 550,000 people signed that Donald Trump should be banned from UK entry?
Questions surrounding censorship, banning, or suggesting prevention strategies, are important questions, particularly as more people seem frustrated by what they view as impinge on free speech. It is no easy issue. For example, is there a difference in an academic’s ability to speak freely against a corporation sponsoring their employer’s institution, versus their own or another’s government?
John Kaag’s article in Times Higher Education is a good read which expands the discussion into very relevant avenues. For example, what role do academic institutions have in providing a ‘safe space’, and does this ‘safe space’ mean an isolated space, or a space to discuss different values and ideologies without persecution? Another question is related to understanding our students: are they apolitical, or simply political under a different structure of varying technological opportunities and approaches? More importantly, what are the implications of banning and censorship? Is it better to provide platforms for critical debate, or simply banish ‘things’ we do not like or approve of?
While these questions are not new, in HE’s push for internationalisation within a climate of increasing conflict and fear, it is worth rethinking how issues that are seemingly fragmented eventually do collide.