The Free Speech Union’s (FSU’s) General Secretary, Toby Young, has sent a threatening letter to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Durham, after its oldest student society, Durham Union Society (‘the Society’), was blocked from taking part in this year’s Freshers’ Fair (Telegraph).
Earlier this week, the Freshers’ Fair, which is organised by Durham Student Union, welcomed hundreds of student societies and volunteer groups to set up stalls on campus. However, the Society was denied a place.
In a letter to the University’s Vice-Chancellor, Prof Karen O’Brien, Toby points out that the Society had been “excluded from the key recruitment event of the academic year”. He goes on to make clear that the move violates the university’s legal duty to protect free speech for all members, students, employees and visiting speakers.
Under s.43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, for instance, the University of Durham is required to take “such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers”.
Subsection 2 specifically provides that reasonably practicable steps should be taken to ensure “that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with… the policy or objectives of that body”.
These duties are incumbent on the governing body of the university, both collectively and individually, and therefore also apply to the President of the Student Union insofar as he is involved in decision-making about these matters.
Toby concludes his letter by making clear it is now up to the university to ensure that the situation is rectified.
Similar to the Oxford and Cambridge Unions, Durham Union Society was founded in 1842 as the university’s debating society, and now includes more than 3,000 current and former students. Although run independently from the university and open to staff and local residents, membership is almost entirely made up of Durham students.
The registered charity hosts weekly events and debates that are frequently advertised on the university’s website. Recent guests include former Conservative prime ministers Boris Johnson and Baroness Theresa May.
This incident is the latest in a long-running and acrimonious dispute between Durham Student Union and the Society. Matters initially came to a head in 2020, when the Palatinate published a number of allegations of wrongdoing at the Society, which was described as a “safe haven for racists, demagogues and colonial apologists”. Examples cited in support of this included statements such as “the sun will rise on the British Empire again”, and “multilingual debating, ha, like we need more foreigners in this place”.
Subsequent to that, Durham Student Union has sought to impose on the Society a series of measures relating to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (‘EDI’) on the basis that the problems the Palatinate had flagged up are systemic, and can only be addressed by wholesale organisational change. Readmittance to Student Union events, and access to Student Union facilities by the Society, was made conditional on meeting the requirements set out by the Student Union.
Durham Student Union told the Telegraph that the debating society had “failed to keep its promise and it is for that reason only that [we] didn’t accept the request from [the Society] to advertise at our freshers’ fair”.
We think this is a red herring, and the real attitude of the student union towards the society may be gleaned from statements on its website. As Toby points out in his letter:
“The current President of the Student Union is quoted saying that he ‘spoke in unambiguous terms about [his] dislike of the Society’. A former Opportunities Officer, objecting to journalist Rod Liddle being invited to speak at the Society, complained of ‘parliamentary-style debates by tuxedo-clad provocateurs’. The distaste for the Society, its members, the events it holds, and the guests it invites is plain to see, and this is likely the real motivation underlying the never-ending list of the Student Union’s EDI ‘concerns’.”
This censorious behaviour by a militant student union, banning a 200 year-old debating society from Freshers’ Fair because it isn’t left-wing enough, wouldn’t be possible if the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act (‘HEFSA’) had been commenced in full by the present government.
Indeed, it’s an incident that perfectly illustrates the need for the remaining provisions of this vital piece of legislation, which is designed to tackle cancel culture at English universities, to be brought into force. But for the actions of the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson, in revoking their commencement, the following options would have been available to the Society:
- A fully-commenced HEFSA would impose certain free speech duties on Student Unions. Moreover, if Durham Student Union adhered to the duties, which HEFSA would impose, this would reduce the likelihood that this situation would have arisen in the first place.
- The free speech complaints scheme would have provided a free-to-access and informal means for the Society and Durham Student Union to settle their dispute, with adjudication via the Office for Student’s Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom.
- If no resolution could be found, the statutory tort would allow the Society to seek redress for the financial losses it anticipates as a result of being denied the ability to recruit, and/or to seek an injunction prohibiting Durham Student Union from taking unlawful action that would foreseeably cause such losses to arise.
This is in part why the FSU has now formally commenced legal proceedings against the government following its decision to stop this vital piece of legislation coming into force.
Thanks to the generous support of our members and supporters we filed a claim against the Education Secretary on 5th September. Our lawyers have put a powerful legal argument before the High Court. You can read our ‘Statement of Facts and Grounds’ here.
However, judicial review is expensive, so any help with our legal costs would be hugely appreciated – click this link to donate.
Make no mistake: these proceedings are extremely important. As Akua Reindorf KC, the UK’s leading equality barrister, puts it, defending this legislation “is not about petty ‘culture wars’; it’s about people’s lives, livelihoods and fundamental human rights”.
