The ‘No Platform’ policy needs to end

Both sides of the no platform debate are concerned with solving the same problem: how do we reduce, and eventually end, oppression towards oppressed groups? History shows us that oppression is best overcome through engagement with the oppressive force.  Engagement allows us to understand why people hold views and thus how best to reason with them; it lets us become better informed as a result of hearing things we often find objectionable; and it allows us to scrutinise and denounce the arguments we find most perverse, and eventually defeat them.

We need look no further than the BNP and Nick Griffin who is currently ‘No Platformed’ under NUS policy for a perfect example of why the policy is so counter productive. It is particularly harmful in two ways: firstly Mr Griffin’s views cannot be challenged by those who disagree with him, they are instead left to foster in places populated by those who already agree with him. “No Platform” allows him to exist, for the most part, in right wing echo chambers surrounded by his own supporters. Thus when videos of him are uploaded to YouTube with no opposition, he appears coherent as there is no-one to challenge him, and his inadequate arguments are punctuated only by the applause of his supporters. Ending ‘No Platform’ allows Nick Griffin’s views to be challenged and exposed; it forces his supporters to listen to the other side. Without this exposure, they can only become more hardened in their views.

Secondly, people like Mr Griffin derive legitimacy from their status of being “No Platformed.” Most supporters of people with extremist views already view the establishment with suspicion, believing institutions such as universities to be bastions of politically homogenous liberals whose only desires are to propagate political correctness, and to sneer down their noses at those less educated than them. People like Mr Griffin use “No Platform” as an example of how he and his supporters are ‘oppressed’ by this establishment who are too afraid to allow him to reveal the ‘truth.’ This makes people like Mr Griffin appear to be fighting against some repressive force which is an easy narrative to exploit in order to win more disaffected people to his cause. Ending ‘No Platform’ would mean people like this could no longer use these narratives and their supporters would instead see them humiliated, in the way Mr Griffin was on Question Time in 2009, after which, support for the party collapsed.

Allowing the people whose views we find most offensive to lurk in the intellectual shadows of un-moderated internet forums and YouTube videos empowers them, as opposing voices are shouted down by the vitriol endemic to these parts of cyber-space. Universities offer the perfect platform of moderated discussion to challenge the most dangerous ideas that manifest themselves in oppression. Unfortunately, “No Platform” prolongs the oppression that groups suffer because it legitimises the views of those who are denied a platform to speak, and it prevents them being challenged and having their arguments exposed and falsified. We want to see oppression towards minority groups and women ended. To do that we need to end the policy of “No Platforming” speakers; bring the proponents of oppressive discourse into the mainstream, and debunk their arguments once and for all.