I am very concerned about our collective inability to hear a contrary voice.

I have long advocated for people to speak up; to make their voice heard. And now, apparently, a voice raised is an invitation to shut it down; to shout it out.

A Students’ Union recently decided to dis-invite controversial speaker Frances Widdowson over concerns that her message did not align with their values.  

The president of the Union, said:

“We’re here to really amplify Black voices, trans voices, Indigenous voices.”

This implies that there is no room for other voices.

There used to be a formal process of debate, in which one person spoke in favour of an issue and the other person spoke in opposition. There were rules. It was vigorous but polite. In the end, one party was declared the winner by vote – based on the merits of their argument. You didn’t have to agree with the conclusion only that one party made a better case. This is a lost art.

Now, to speak in opposition to an issue is to invite ridicule, scorn and even threats of violence. We no longer know how to listen. We don’t recognize merit in another person’s argument if you don’t agree with their conclusion.

This is not the first time that university students have banned speakers.

Remember when students used to go off to university and come home with their heads full of radical ideas – ideas that challenged the status quo? Sometimes those revolutionary ideas stuck but more often they were modified by new experiences and new ideas. Now students come home having been taught what is right.

This is a symptom of teaching to the text book. We teach that there is only one side to an issue; that there is the answer with no shades of grey. Students learn that there is a right answer and that they will not be rewarded for divergent or creative thinking.

Simple concrete answers (will it be on the exam?)

It is interesting to me that the LU students say they want to amplify the voices of those who have not been heard (a noble, commendable task). But I worry that they are certain those voices are 100% accurate and defensible. I guess I always worry about convictions. The world is too complicated for certainty.  

How can you understand that silencing Black, trans or Indigenous voices was wrong and yet fail to understand the need to hear what others are saying – even when you disagree.

I know there are people in this world who want to scream obscenities into the void – who only want to hear the sound of their own voice; who really only seek personal fame or gain. But how will I know which voice to listen to if I only listen to those I already agree with?

I believe in freedom of expression. And even though some things offend me or absolutely horrify me I want the right to express myself and I want the right to hear and see things I don’t agree with. So that I can grow. So that I can change, or feel more confident in my position.

I said I am an advocate for speaking up and speaking out – whether I agree with your or not. I am also an advocate of finding your own moral compass. Aligning yourself with someone who does not match your values can have consequences. As an individual I would only worry that association might corrupt (or more likely, not be worth the effort). But I wonder, does an institution, like a university, worry that one speaker will corrupt their moral values? I suspect there would have been students more than happy to hear the speaker and raise a contrary voice – but they were also silenced.

I suspect these types of situations are primarily influenced by concern about public perception. Were they worried about negative publicity? Or were they seeking positive publicity by virtue signalling?

I suspect I am not alone, although I might be in the minority, when I say that my perception of university students is diminished, not enhanced, when they refuse to allow the contrarian voice to be heard. My perception is that they fear they lack the ability to articulate their position and so instead they simply refuse to listen. Maybe it is just a few, frightened folk making these decisions.

But if this type of decision reflects the will of the student body – shame on us. On all of us, all the adults, parents, teachers and mentors, who have taught young people that there is only one way to be right.

Book banning, cancelling the contrary voice. Where will it end?

That’s what I’m thinking about today – in case you care.