Jo Johnson, the higher education minister, is facing a backlash from students after he threatened fines against universities that failed to defend free speech on campuses.

The government was accused of both exaggerating the issue and failing to listen to student concerns, after Johnson set out the policy in a speech on Boxing Day.

He claimed free speech was under threat because some students are denying speaking slots to campaigners who have expressed controversial views, calling for books to be removed from libraries and demanding extensive “trigger lists” of words not to be used.

However, a senior National Union of Students (NUS) official defended its policies, saying it only denied a platform to a small number of extremist groups: Al-Muhajiroun, the British National party, the English Defence League, Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK and National Action.

Izzy Lenga, its vice-president for welfare, said: “These are the only organisations no-platformed by NUS. No individual person. These dangerous groups seek (and have done before) to threaten, demonise and attack the lives of students on campus. They have absolutely no place in our colleges and universities.

“We are not censoring free speech; we are protecting groups of students on campus who have as much of a right to be there as any other student from groups that wish to harm us physically and mentally because of our identity.”

The Union of Jewish Students expressed its support for the NUS’s use of no-platform policies to deal with hate speech and incitement to violence.

UJS campaigns manager Liron Velleman said: “No platform policies for those who continue to threaten or incite violence continue to be an important tool against fascism used by NUS, students’ unions and student groups. Additionally, we have welcomed the increased focus in recent years on a duty of care for students and the introduction of external speaker guidelines by many institutions.

“Freedom of speech on campus is a fundamental democratic right but there continues to be a role for clear and precise no platform policies to be used in the fight against violent racism, fascism and other forms of discrimination.”

The NUS position was supported by Labour. Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, said it was a “false choice to suggest that universities are either places of free enquiry or places of safety”.

“They can be both. Denying access to groups and individuals who incite violence and hatred is a perfectly sensible step to keep students safe from harm,” she said.

“The National Union of Students have a ‘no-platform’ policy for a handful of racist, antisemitic and extremist organisations, some of which the government itself has also banned. If Jo Johnson is opposed to that policy, he needs to be clear which of those groups he actually wants on campus. Otherwise this so-called announcement is just another meaningless gimmick from a government that has run out of ideas.”

Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrat education spokeswoman: said there was “a delicate balance” to be struck between safeguarding free speech and allowing students to feel safe.

“Students have complained to me that Jo Johnson has not taken the time to understand their concerns about this, some of which are quite legitimate,” she said.

“I hope that when the Office for Students (OfS) adjudicates such cases it asks for all evidence to be put before it especially the voices of students before it comes to judgment.”

The government’s Boxing Day announcement did not name universities or student campaigners that have suppressed free speech, and followed a similar one in October.



Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Johnson suggested fines could be one of the punishments used by the new OfS to deal with “no platforming” of campaigners with controversial views.

Asked about cases where students had tried to deny speaking slots to Peter Tatchell, a gay rights campaigner, and Germaine Greer, a feminist writer, over their views on transgender issues, he said: “The OfS will have a range of remedies at its disposal which do include fines at the more extreme end of the spectrum. I think it is important that we look at the cases mentioned.

“These are speakers who have been potentially banned or harried under no-platforming or safe spaces decisions. On all reasonable definitions, they are advocates of openness and liberal values and should be welcomed on our campuses.”

Critics feel the announcement does not help universities define when individuals are actively engaged in hate speech and when they are merely expressing their opinion.

However, Johnson said the law on hate speech was clearly set out by parliament and argued that students who felt uncomfortable with views that did not come within that definition had to become “resilient and learn to deal with controversial opinions”.

Student unions and campaigners have banned – or attempted to ban – a number of high-profile people from speaking at universities because of their controversial opinions.



Rachael Melhuish, the women’s officer at Cardiff University, called for Greer to be no-platformed for what she believed to be transphobic views. Greer eventually spoke at the university under tight security.

As a condition of registration to the OfS, the Department for Education is proposing that publicly funded universities must show that their governance is consistent with the principles of free speech. t has not, however, outlined how it would measure the governance or how they should comply with free speech.

The OfS is expected to be given regulatory powers to issue formal sanctions against universities, such as fines or de-registration.

Earlier in the year, the government extended the statutory duty to secure free speech so that it will apply to all providers of higher education registered with the OfS.