The campus was a whirlwind on the recent anniversary of October 7, with a brief highlight of events featuring the occupation of the Samuel Alexander building, a World Academic Summit marred by protests outside the Whitworth Art Gallery, and a sudden ‘siege’ of the Students’ Union by police officers. In a time where we are as polarised as ever, the one thing we seem to agree on is that tensions are high.
Fervent student activism is no new phenomenon. Universities have a longstanding legacy of liberal thinking – nurturing innovation, non-conformity, and free thinking. Its inherent role in driving academic inquiry means higher education is inseparable from political liberalism.
In line with this, universities have been at the forefront of defending free speech and academic freedom since the 1930s, with the onset of radical student activism in the 60s and 70s with Vietnam antiwar protests, followed by the epochal Anti-Apartheid Movement of the 1980s.
Understanding this history, it’s no shock that student bodies and faculties are predominantly liberal at universities. But in 2024, that ideology aimed at open discourse is beginning to feel more homogenous and conformist.
To be clear, liberal belief in and of itself is not the issue, nor is there anything wrong in a left-majority campus. Those same values that are so often espoused have enriched university curricula by implementing readings from underrepresented and intersectional backgrounds, induced an emphasis on non-mainstream critical theories, and fostered a generally inclusive atmosphere.
But that same doctrine fails us when we close off and allow openness to collapse into echo chambers, and when dissenting ideas are stifled instead of debated.
What began as a campaign for inclusivity has now evolved into a culture war – marked by a race to the radical left and the isolation of diverse political perspectives on campus. A report by Kings College found that around two-thirds of students have refrained from voicing an opinion on topics such as politics, gender identity, or the British Empire, out of fear of judgement.
The fear to express different political views disproportionately affects students with more conservative viewpoints – but even those with milder, middle-of-the-road beliefs are beginning to feel the pinch.
The problem is not the material restriction of free speech – there is no law in writing that restricts our expression on campus. The problem is silent, underlying, and felt intangibly at any moment. We witness and experience the underlying paranoia that plagues campus through the heavy use of qualifiers when we express alternative viewpoints. When we risk the persecution in the court of campus opinion, be it through social media DMs or through isolation at university, it is understandable why many begin to shy away from sharing political opinions.
To some, this phenomenon might be good, or even beneficial to the overall university atmosphere. If we want a truly inclusive campus for all individuals, how can we tolerate the political opinions that threaten the very existence of some students? But this line of thinking exemplifies the precise problem we are facing.
Political diversity used to be built on a shared vision of an ideal society and the issues we face, even if the methods and tools used to solve these issues were contested. But in this polarised world, where discourse is distorted by extremism on both sides of the political spectrum, and where we forget the value of being able to find middle ground, we lose sight of our common goals and assume the other side is against our fundamental existence.
This merely fuels the race to become the most contrarian, which merely restarts the cycle as we are pushed further to opposing ends of the spectrum, leaving us more divided to no end. If we sat down for meaningful dialogue, we could realise that we have far more that we agree on than disagree on, which is a more useful basis of operation for solving solutions, rather than the performative activism we tend to see nowadays.
I am all for radical student activism – it is a necessary part of democratic life on campus. But, in times like this, I am just as strong a proponent for listening over shouting, understanding over chanting.
The rhetoric of ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us’ must stop, and so must the assumption that ideological disagreements are personal and irreconcilable. As a student community, we are only as diverse as long as we are able to express our diversity. For all the engaging debate that does take place on campus, imagine the wealth of ideas and perspectives that are still unspoken.
The prevailing hard-left doctrine will always be protected and have its place on campus, but if we are to be truly liberal, we must stop the illiberalism towards opposing opinions. A university campus is no place to stifle the silent majority of alternative viewpoints. We must make a concerted effort to foster a safe and conducive space so that we can stop self-censorship and allow difficult, but necessary, conversations to take place.
Most importantly, in these rather dystopian times, where we wake to a new nightmare turn of events each day, the best thing we can do is empathise. And true empathy begins when we recognise the value of every voice, not just the loudest ones.
