OUSU’s referendum on its controversial ‘No Platform’ policy could be scrapped after Council postponed a vote on the issue last week.
The debate surrounding OUSU’s No Platform stance – which actively opposes allowing fascist or racist speakers to air their views – came to head after the high-profile ‘Free Speech Forum’ at the Union last term, and has divided JCR opinion across the University.Some common rooms have already voted to back a new, amended version of the policy, while others have rejected it outright, demanding a University-wide referendum.Under the newly-drafted policy, only individuals who use OUSU platforms to actually advocate violence are prevented from using them, whereas the old policy barred anyone who had previously advocated violence against a minority group.In addition, the new draft specifies that OUSU mediums covered in “independent agreements” – including The Oxford Student and Oxide Radio – would be independent of the policy.The policy would no longer be called ‘No Platform’, in order to emphasise its distinction from the NUS No Platform policy. This would leave NUS delegates to OUSU Council free to vote as they choose for the Oxford policy without being restricted by their NUS position.“It is better to leave the new policy unnamed, because of the negative connotations associated with No Platform,” said OUSU President Martin McCluskey.McCluskey called the referendum at the end of last term in response to the demands of JCRs.The new version of the policy , which was adapted by James Lamming, VP for Access and Academic Affairs, has been drafted in order to avoid the cost of holding University-wide vote on the current policy. “This was going to dominate the entire term and cost a lot of money,” McCluskey said.It has also been suggested that the poll, which had been scheduled for fourth week, was postponed because most students did not know enough about the details of the policy to make a well-informed decision.OUSU Council will vote next Friday to decide whether to go ahead with the poll, or to adopt the altered policy.
So far, Merton, Queen’s, St Peter’s and St Catherine’s have voted to accept the new draft, while Keble and Lincoln have voted in favour of a referendum. Other common rooms are due to vote on the issue this week.Keble JCR President John Maher said that while the new draft was better, it failed to resolve the fundamental problem. He said, “The compromise addresses specific issues in the old No Platform policy, but not the underlying issue of free speech. No Platform policies send out the message: ‘Free speech? No thanks.’ If people can’t speak freely at Oxford, then where can they?”Lamming disagreed with Maher’s comments. He said, “I completely agree with freedom of speech. But if we have a member who exploits our resources and breaks the law, we could be taken to the cleaners. It is difficult to believe there is anyone who would support the idea that OUSU should help people break the law.”Jonny Medland, JCR President at Queen’s, originally argued in favour of a referendum, but now supports the amended policy. He said, “We’ve been debating for over a year without understanding the issues. There is no longer any real interest in the debate: people just want the issue to go away.”St Peter’s JCR President, Joel Mullan, also expressed frustration with the process. He said, “I personally support the No Platform policy – I do not believe that our Student Union’s resources should be used to assist those who want to incite violence. However, OUSU has got to resolve this issue once and for all, so that it can stop wasting time debating No Platform and get on with the essential work it needs to be doing on things like rent, academic affairs, and welfare.”However, some believe that the newly drafted policy is too lenient. Dani Quinn, JCR President of Merton, said, “When freedom of speech is being exercised to the degree of inviting or promoting people who hold views that most Britons find abhorrent, I think that ignores other responsibilities and starts to inhibit other sorts of freedoms and hinders progress.”by Jack Farchy
