Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Blaðsíða 191

Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021
196
International Legal Research Group
197
Although proponents of the Prevent duty argue that it is ‘helping families,
saving children’s lives and stopping radicalisation,’443 the more appropriate view
constructed by Universities UK is that anti-extremism policy ‘has created “a grey
area in relation to free speech which did not previously exist.”’444 Furthermore,
student unions have criticised the Prevent duty for causing ‘self-censoring’445
amongst students and staff as guidance fails to clarify ‘which views might be
considered extremist’446 and ‘lengthy bureaucracy’447 is required in the recording
and investigation of events, particularly those involving external speakers.
Furthermore, critics argue that the Government’s Prevent policy ‘may have
a wider effect than simply deterring student unions from inviting individual
speakers,’448 with suggestions that ‘students, particularly Muslim students’449 have
been consistently ‘dissuaded from becoming involved in student activism out of
fear of being reported under the Prevent duty for expressing opinions on certain
issues.’450 Moreover, a report undertaken by Just Yorkshire - ‘based on interviews
with 36 Muslim students, academics and professionals’451 - concluded that ‘a wide
spectrum’452 of those surveyed ‘articulated concerns in relation to surveillance,
censorship and the resultant isolation felt by many.’453 Given repeated concerns
that the prevent duty is instigating ‘fear, suspicion and censorship’454 on
university campuses, it can therefore be argued that institutions are not only
struggling to tackle inhibiting issues such as this; they are failing to fulfil their role
and responsibilities in promoting rights to freedom of expression and association
within and outside their campuses.
8.4.2.2 Bureaucracy
It is evident that some institutions’ codes of practice regarding freedom of speech
‘appear to inhibit free speech within the law rather than enhance it.’455 Numerous
codes of practice are ‘unclear, difficult to navigate, or impose bureaucratic
hurdles which could deter students from holding events and inviting external

443 Chris Graham, 'What Is The Anti-Terror Prevent Programme And Why Is It Controversial?' (The
Telegraph, 2018) <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/anti-terror-prevent-programme-
controversial/> accessed 1 June 2018.
444 (n 3).
445 ibid.
446 ibid.
447 ibid.
448 ibid.
449 ibid.
450 ibid.
451 Josh Halliday, 'Prevent Scheme 'Fosters Fear And Censorship At Universities' (the Guardian, 2018)
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/29/prevent-scheme-fosters-fear-and-
censorship-at-universities-just-yorkshire> accessed 1 June 2018.
452 'Rethinking Prevent: The Case For An Alternative Approach' (rethinkingprevent.org.uk, 2017)
<http://rethinkingprevent.org.uk/> accessed 1 June 2018.
453 ibid.
454 ibid.
455 (n 3).
speakers.’456 Evidence reinforces this notion as research undertaken by the
Higher Education Policy Institute (‘HEPI’) evaluated ‘a sample of policies’457
from universities, concluding that many codes of practice ‘left it up to the reader
to find the related polices, codes, templates or forms required to arrange an
event.’458 Additionally, HEPI found that ‘not all universities have updated their
codes of practice on freedom of speech following the implementation of the
Prevent Duty in August 2015, with some policies dating back to 2010.’459 It can
therefore be argued that institutions are not only failing to combat limiting issues
but more importantly, are struggling to fulfil their role and responsibilities in
promoting freedom of speech and the right to protest within and outside their
campuses.
8.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
These sections have sought to examine the role and responsibilities that
universities and student unions in England have regarding promoting freedom
of speech and the right to protest within and outside their campuses. By
providing an analysis of the legal framework governing freedom of speech and
the right to protest in universities, it has attempted to evaluate the extent to which
these rights are being protected at universities, conclusively finding that a number
of factors are impeding freedom of speech and the right to protest on university
campuses. Following a closer analysis of such limiting factors, it is evident that
some institutions are arguably failing to fulfil their role and responsibilities in
promoting freedom of speech and the right to protest within and outside their
campuses.
Finally, in light of such failings, this section concludes that the ‘complex
tangle of regulations’460 currently governing free speech and the right to protest
on university campuses should be ‘replaced by one clear set of guidelines for
both students and institutions.’461 Above all, such guidance should outline ‘core
principles’462 for securing and upholding free speech and the right to protest,
provide ‘much-needed clarity’463 and prohibits ‘“bureaucrats or wreckers on

456 ibid.
457 'An Analysis of UK University Free Speech Policies Prepared for The Joint Committee for Human
Rights' (Parliament.uk, 2018) <https://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-
rights/2015-20-parliament/HEPIreport090218.pdf> accessed 1 June 2018.
458 ibid.
459 'Joint Committee for Human Rights Publishes HEPI Analysis of University Free Speech Policies
- HEPI' (HEPI, 2018) <http://www.hepi.ac.uk/2018/03/15/joint-committee-human-rights-
publishes-hepi-analysis-university-free-speech-policies/> accessed 1 June 2018.
460 (n 11).
461 ibid.
462 ibid.
463 'UK Universities And Students Back Clearer Guidance On Free Speech' (Times Higher Education
(THE), 2018) <https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/uk-universities-and-students-back-
clearer-guidance-free-speech> accessed 1 June 2018.