A UNIVERSITY is the last place that should restrict free thinking, which is why the attempts by some students to ban speech or behaviour they consider offensive has been so extraordinary. Universities should be doing everything they can to defend the right to challenge orthodoxies and vigorously explore complicated issues, and that inevitably runs the risk that some people or groups might be offended.
So have a group of pro-life students at Strathclyde University become the latest victims of the attempts to shut down “offensive” views? They certainly believe so and have asked the ruling court to intervene after their attempts to access funding were rejected.
The students of the Catholic Society had wanted funding from the University Students’ Association as a recognised club. But the Student Parliament rejected the move and the pro-life group says it has been denied a basic right.
The student association sees things differently and says the Catholic Society has the right to take the issue to a referendum on whether to change the official support for a women’s right to choose. That may be so, but the point is that one view on abortion is effectively restricted because it does not accord with the officially accepted position.
A similar situation arose at Glasgow University last year when a group of academics said Daniel Taub, the Israeli ambassador to the UK, should be banned from the campus. But this newspaper defended his visit on the grounds students should have access to a range of views, and the same applies to the Catholic Society.
Academics, students, or protestors have the right to object to views on abortion or any other issue, but they should not expect to be able to shut down those opinions, directly through a ban or indirectly through withholding funding. The authorities at Strathclyde need to look again at what they are doing to defend free speech and open debate.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel