According to research by online magazine Spiked 80% of universities have restrictions on free speech – from banning sombreros to excluding the Sun

When Professor Thomas Scotto, of Essex University’s department of government, invited Israel’s deputy ambassador to give a talk to political science students, he hoped for “lots of disagreement: that the speaker would express his views and that the students would challenge him”.

Instead, a noisy protest outside the venue ramped up into an attempt to storm the building, students in the lecture theatre heckled the Israeli diplomat, and it became impossible for him to begin. With feelings running high, university security said they could no longer guarantee the speaker’s safety. The event had to be abandoned.

“It broke my heart that some students came with pages and pages of notes ready to challenge the speaker, and that was wasted because other students violently opposed him being there,” says Scotto. “One of the key goals of the university is ‘excellence in education’: I don’t think we accomplish this when an element of the student body believes the only appropriate tools they have when confronted with ideas and people they disagree with is to throw temper tantrums and employ hecklers’ vetoes.”

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris, people all over the world are debating whether freedom of speech means protecting a right to offend. Scotto says that listening to and rigorously questioning high-profile speakers about controversial global issues is “vital training” for undergraduates and a life skill – especially for anyone wanting to work in public life.

In research by online magazine Spiked, 80% of universities are shown, as a result of their official policies and actions, to have either restricted or actively censored free speech and expression on campus beyond the requirements of the law. Spiked’s first ever Free Speech University Rankings – which were overseen by Professor Dennis Hayes, head of the centre for educational research at Derby University and Dr Joanna Williams, senior lecturer in higher education at Kent university – show each university administration and students’ union graded green, amber or red based on an assessment of their policies and actions. Institutions have been given an overall ranking based on the two combined.

The research paints a picture of students keen to discourage racism but sometimes with almost comic effect. Birmingham university’s student union has banned “racist” sombreros and native American dress from being worn on campus. Lancaster union has banned initiation ceremonies, defined in part as “engaging in public stunts and buffoonery”.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest A Cambridge proctor speaks to a protestor objecting to the appearance of far-right politician Marine Le Pen in 2013. Spiked gave Cambridge an orange rating. Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty Images

Essex is among the worst performers in Spiked’s research – one of five universities in which the student union and the administration are both assessed as actively preventing freedom of speech. The other four are Portsmouth, Northampton, Bath Spa and the University of the West of England.

Applying to the country’s most prestigious institutions won’t guarantee the right to speak your mind either: the research showed 88% of Russell Group and 1994 Group universities have placed restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. Oxford – where one college recently called off a debate about abortion – is ranked red. Cambridge is amber.

“What’s worrying is we seem to have moved away from a clear ideological divide to an apolitical calculation as to who should be censored, because of a wider judgment based purely on the potential to upset and offend,” says Tom Slater, assistant editor at Spiked and co-ordinator of the project. “We found a few startling examples.” In one incident, at London South Bank University, an atheist group was asked to remove their posters. “It’s how wide that net is becoming that’s troubling, because it could go anywhere.”

Not everyone will agree with the criteria Spiked used in its rankings. Banning an event, a speaker or a song – all cited as reasons for being graded “red” – is usually considered an act of censorship. But an equality policy stating that homophobic, sexist and racist language will not be tolerated also attracts a red rating.

Bath Spa University says it has reviewed its policies in the light of Spiked’s claims that it is “a hostile environment for freedom of speech” but finds “no evidence whatsoever to support this conclusion”. Portsmouth says: “We value freedom of speech and nothing presented in this analysis suggests otherwise.” Northampton, meanwhile, states that while it supports “constructive” debates on all issues, it does not tolerate “offensive or extremist activities”.

Essex University points out that it is given green ratings for its code of practice on freedom of speech, university charter and other key policies, and says it is “absurd” that it is given a red ranking “for providing guidance to our community about avoiding homophobic behaviour, in line with the Equality Act 2010. We make no apology for working to ensure all our staff and students are treated with dignity and respect.”

One of the reasons for UWE’s red ranking was the student union’s ban on advertising by payday loan companies. This, says the university, is simply a common sense effort to prevent exploitation of students.

There is nuance in the grading system however: UWE student union’s vote approving the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel was given amber. Spiked judges said that “the union is subscribing not only to the boycott of products but the boycotting of Israeli academics ... as this motion does not explicitly link to a censorship of speech, this is not an outright ban on pro-Israeli thought.”

A commercial decision was made to boycott the Sun and the Star from sale in our shop based on their sexist attitudes Chantel Le Carpentier, Essex univeristy

With the home secretary, Theresa May, threatening universities with legal sanctions via a new counter-terrorism bill unless they act to prevent radicalisation on campus, it is not surprising if vice-chancellors are anxious to square the circle of promoting free speech with acting lawfully – quite apart from ensuring staff and student safety. So concerned are they that last week a number of vice-chancellors wrote to the home secretary to say that universities should be exempted from the new law.

In fact, Spiked’s rankings show it is not usually university managements that are behind outright censorship on campus: only 9.5% have done so, according to the research. By contrast, 51% of student unions have actively censored certain types of speech or instituted bans. “Students’ own representative bodies are far more censorious than universities,” says Slater.

Why? The unions at Essex, Portsmouth and the University of the West of England all issued statements saying that their policies are intended to protect students and staff, and pointing out that students vote them in. Northampton’s union president did not respond to requests for a comment.

“There’s a difference between being critical of ideas and being critical of people,” says Bruce Galliver, president of Bath Spa students’ union, the only one willing to be interviewed. “I don’t think any ideas are beyond criticism. But it’s offensive language directed at individuals that I’d have a problem with, and that’s what our policies are trying to protect.”

Along with other student unions, Bath Spa banned Robin Thicke’s controversial song Blurred Lines. “That was voted for,” says Galliver. “I’d commend the students for being proactive in ensuring a track where rape culture and the idea that consent is something to ignore isn’t played on campus. And the opportunity to challenge a motion that goes through the Student Council is always there.”

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Protesters clash and police clash outside Cambridge University’s Student Union in 2013. Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty Images

At Portsmouth University, student union president Grant Clarke says in a statement that policies aimed at defending students from racist, sexist and homophobic harassment don’t preclude people from openly talking and discussing these issues, “but we don’t accept these behaviours on our campus”.

And at Essex, bans on certain newspapers are framed by student union president Chantel Le Carpentier as “a commercial decision to boycott the Sun and the Star from sale in our shop based on their representation of women in the media and sexist attitudes … We use our freedom of speech to urge people not to buy it by not stocking it on campus.”

Some academics, however, are worried by student unions’ determination to rule on what students should and shouldn’t see or discuss – and by what they characterise as universities’ failure to challenge it.

“Real freedom of expression can hurt. That’s the price we pay,” says professor Bill Durodié, an expert in the causes and perceptions of security risk, at the university of Bath. “Is fostering empathy with other people’s feelings valuable? One hundred percent yes. Should it direct everything you do? No.”

An obsession with protecting people’s feelings has, over time, begun to trump other values, he says, “and if feelings are sacrosanct, then at the margins, the attacks on Charlie Hebdo are the end consequence. I’d say the solution to bad speech is more speech, not regulated speech.”

Real freedom of expression can hurt. That’s the price we pay Prof Bill Durodié, University of Bath

The ramifications for universities go wider, suggests Hayes. There is, he says, a growing trend for rigorous intellectual challenge to be seen as too scary for students to cope with.

“Universities have developed a therapeutic ethos, where students are no longer seen as confident adults, but as vulnerable,” he says. “And if you tell them that they need to be looked after and protected, then students develop this image of themselves, and vulnerability becomes a badge.”

“Vice chancellors are often very supportive of academic freedom and free speech,” he says. “But in lower levels of management, when they’re making decisions, there’s this sensitivity about not upsetting students which makes it impossible to have proper debate.”

When Israel’s deputy ambassador was prevented from talking at Essex in 2013, the vice-chancellor condemned the protests and students were sanctioned. The university says it “made it clear that it would fully support the department should they wish to address these issues again as a part of their programmes of study [including] support for representatives of the Israeli government being invited to address students”.

Scotto maintains, however, that he was not encouraged to reinstate the event. “There was no realisation that this is a long-term, systemic problem. When I pressed to have the speaker back I was told ‘Tom, just let it go’.”

Reflecting on the debacle now, Scotto says: “Universities need to articulate their values or set the tone necessary to promote the open exchange of ideas. The reality is that the world is a big, mean place. And some students seem to want to be shielded from that.”

How they compare

Green ‘good’ rankings to …

• University of Wales, Trinity St David

• University of Winchester

• University of Buckingham

• London Met

• Liverpool Hope

• University of Sunderland

• Southampton Solent University

… but others get the red light:

• Bath Spa University

• Essex University

• Portsmouth University

• Northampton University

• University of the West of England

Source: Spiked