Should students be given ¡°trigger warnings¡± about discussions and texts that may offend them and ¡°intellectual safe spaces¡± on campus?

That was the key question for panellists taking part in a debate at a London Thinks event held at Conway Hall on 10 September.

Pam Lowe, senior lecturer in sociology at Aston University, stressed that ¡°everything is discussed in the classroom. Nothing is banned¡±. Yet since her research indicated that ¡°students want to discuss difficult issues in class" but also want to be warned about them in advance, she tried to create ¡°safe spaces¡± for them.

However, she said the university did not have the same responsibility for other events on campus.

ÖйúAƬ

In the Islamic Society, for example, ¡°men and women often sit on different sides of the room even though there is no sign telling them to do so. Who am I to say they have to mix themselves up?¡±

Meanwhile, writer and activist Beatrix Campbell was distressed by the way that Rupert Read, lecturer in philosophy at the University of East Anglia (and a Green Party candidate at the last general election), had been fiercely attacked for his ¡°wrong views¡± after writing ¡°a philosophical rumination on transgender issues¡±.

ÖйúAƬ

Feminist campaigner Julia Bindel had similarly been ¡°punished" by an NUS no-platform ban "repeated year in and year out¡± for her own views on the topic. Such censoriousness risked undermining ¡°the feminist goal of challenging all questions of gender¡±, said Ms Campbell.

Discussion also touched on the banning of "laddish¡± comedian Dapper Laughs by Cardiff University and the cancellation of a gig by feminist comedian Kate Smurthwaite at Goldsmiths, University of London, after concerns that her views on prostitution might breach the university¡¯s ¡°safe space policy¡± targeting ¡°oppressive behaviour¡±.

It was left to Brendan O¡¯Neill, editor of Spiked Online magazine, to take an extreme free-speech position (even extending to the right of people to publish paedophile fantasies).

¡°Once you¡¯ve accepted a ¡®no platform policy¡¯,¡± he argued, ¡°you¡¯ve already conceded the principle¡±. Concerns about ¡°Islamophobia¡± could easily lead to ¡°the pathologisation of legitimate moral viewpoints¡±.

ÖйúAƬ

¡°We are here to talk about free speech,¡± Mr O¡¯Neill challenged his fellow panellists. ¡°Do you accept the right of a rugby club to issue a leaflet using the word ¡®mingers¡¯?¡± He was greeted by a cry from the floor: ¡°I support free speech, but not you!¡±

matthew.reisz@tesglobal.com