The union lost the plot and free speech suffered

Here’s a picture of Malaysian PM Najib Razak. Malaysian police responded to this image by warning the author that the image was ‘offensive’. They then threatened that if he didn’t ‘act within the law’, he would be arrested.

This, of course, had nothing to do with the fact that someone rich and powerful decided they didn’t like looking the clown.

Of course, no such autocratic response to criticism would cross the minds of our very own democratically elected leaders here at Imperial.

Instead, when one is the Union President and faced with a critical article, the union merely “strongly advises” that it be removed from print. Then, oddly enough, one’s subjects (or, students?) are told that continuing to distribute the article is “elevated harassment”. Right.

There’s a lot more at stake here than Lucinda’s blushes.

This ‘ban’ is yet another example of college and the union interfering with the right of students and staff to comment and criticise. Freedom of expression isn’t without restrictions. But I doubt that anyone who reads Private Eye (never mind Hangman) would be in the least surprised at the style of RAG’s publication.

In fact, it seems much more likely that the Union’s treatment of RAG broke its own policy in its treatment of RAG than in anything RAG wrote about the union.

I doubt that anyone who reads Private Eye would be in the least surprised at the style of RAG’s publication

For the body charged with safeguarding and protecting us as students, this is shameful. For starters, there’s the legal gobbledygook coming out of Beit. To quote their own policy: “Harassment is always linked to anti discrimination legislation, and thus will focus on sex, gender reassignment, marriage”.

These are known as protected characteristics. Unless the union can prove that the President was specifically targeted for abuse due to one of these, the accusation of harassment is completely baseless. i.e. apparently the union thinks the RAG article sexist. Was it? Having read said article, and given the treatment handed out to a ‘Fen Bernando’, this claim is utter trash.

To quote IC FemSoc in full: “Though we can’t comment on other aspects of the article, the committee of ICFemSoc (which does not necessarily represent the opinions of all it’s members, or all feminists) does not believe the article in itself is sexist”.

In short, the case for the union behaving as it did is shot. As a source close to RAG commented: “They just didn’t follow their own rules”. Truly, Ms. Sandon-Allum, I find it ‘unacceptably insulting’ that someone within your union’s management thought they could get away with it.

The basic question is this. If the case for the article being harassing is so flimsy, on what basis exactly did the union go around hauling students into meetings, demanding apologies and generally applying pressure? These underhand, opaque tactics of ‘banning-but-not-banning’ reek of a culture of political face-saving over democratic principle.

Perhaps Ms. Sandon-Allum and team simply haven’t read their own policy.

“Bullying: The exercise of power over another person through persistent, negative acts or behaviour that undermines an individual personally and/or professionally.”

Despite this wacko logic, President A. Gast went so far as to call the article in question ‘disgusting’ and warmly welcomed the above ‘strong’ response.

By apple pie and eagles, it staggers me that anyone can be paid £421,000 a year, and yet be seemingly so unaware of her own obligations. To quote the Imperial College Constitution:

“So far as is reasonably practical, freedom of speech within the law will be secured for students and staff of the college.”

This isn’t a luxury. Protecting this right of expression is a legal obligation on the college and it’s leaders (have a read of the Education Reform Act 1988 or Education Act No. 2, 1986).

Professor, since when has it been ‘strong’ to be so blasé about academic freedom?

Protecting this right of expression is a legal obligation

The problem with constitutions is that they are only as good as their defenders. Take the Malaysian example. Article 10 of the constitution begins: “Every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression”. Despite this, PM Razak has used the Sedition Act over 91 times this year. This is a 1948 act, designed with the express purpose of preventing revolt against British rule. Article 3a) reads: “It is an offence to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government”.

Is it seditious of me to wonder exactly what the difference is between our dear old Imperial Union’s position and the colonialists of yesteryear?

The biggest ‘discredit to the college’s legacy’ from this farce is that the words of President Gast and the behaviour of ICU sets a precedent that fundamentally threatens the scientific integrity of the college.

Scientific integrity does not just stop at the lab door. It is the fundamental principle that there is no topic too hard or painful that we don’t have a right to discuss and examine. If we lose that as a college, we’re dead.

Truth is, the union has not had it too tough, but too easy. As one student commented on a recent FELIX article: “the Sabbs are so unaccountable for their (lack of) actions.”

That’s got to change.