Read on Twitter
#OTD 17 October, 1986 - a speech by Enoch Powell to the Conservative Association at Bristol University is disrupted by students, at the height of media and political concern about 'no platforming' at British universities (a thread).
Although no longer a Conservative MP, Powell was still invited to speak by Conservative student groups throughout the mid-1980s. He had to cancel a speech at Leeds University in January 1985 due to student protest, but had spoken at other universities with little protest.
A week prior to his proposed speech at Bristol, Powell had had to abandon a talk at University College Cardiff when students launched a protest to prevent Powell from speaking. This led to attention on Powell's next scheduled visit, this time at Bristol University.
The student union at Bristol did not have a formal 'no platform' policy in 1986 and in response to Powell's visit, the student union instead urged a silent protest. The SU President suggested that the Conservative Association was being provocative with their invitation of Powell.
The SU President, David Gottlieb, stated: ‘It is my considered opinion that there are people in this Students’ Union whose actions prove them to be interested not in protecting freedom of speech but in stirring up trouble’.
An editorial in the student newspaper Bacus also questioned the motives of the Conservative Association, asking: 'Do they hope for interesting speeches, or for the sort of protest which will give Fleet Street the chance to run yet more ‘left wing thug’ stories?'
This controversy came during the parliamentary debates over the Education (No. 2) Bill 1986, which sought to introduce legislation that would require universities to take reasonable steps to ensure freedom of speech on campus. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/new-legislation-will-not-eliminate-student-no-platforming
The student paper implored students to be peaceful in their demonstrations against Powell, pleading:
"Don’t play into the hands of the Tories and right-wing press by resorting to violence... We will suffer the consequences if you do."
"Don’t play into the hands of the Tories and right-wing press by resorting to violence... We will suffer the consequences if you do."
When Powell arrived, around 200 protestors picketed the venue, but a smaller group of students confronted Powell shortly after he started speaking. 'Bacus' reported: 'They blew whistles, let off stink and smoke bombs and at one point threw a ham salad sandwich at him…'
A 'Bacus' editorial declared these protestors had ‘discredited everybody who had made an effort to provide a forum for those who find the views of Powell and his ilk abhorrent’. In the 'Daily Express', Lord Chalfont called those who disrupted Powell ’a mob of illiterate morons’.
The anarchists rationalised their tactics by claiming:
'In the absence of an effective anti-racist policy in this Students Union there was no other way of preventing Powell and what he represents from speaking.'
'In the absence of an effective anti-racist policy in this Students Union there was no other way of preventing Powell and what he represents from speaking.'
A week later, two figures from the journal 'Salisbury Review', John Savery and Ray Honeyford, spoke at Bristol University, alongside John Bercow from the Federation of Conservative Students. The SU significantly increased security for the event in light of the Powell protests.
Bercow commented on the disruption of the Powell speech the previous week, calling it ‘a disgrace to a free society and to the very concept of an academy where debate and free speech occur’. But there was little protest or disruption at this event.
In the wake of these incidents at Bristol, the student union held a vote on whether a ‘no platform’ should be introduced at the university, although it focused on preventing fascists from speaking, not right-wing MPs, which had been the controversy at Bristol.
For those who disrupted Powell, whether a formal ‘no platform’ policy applied to Tory MPs was a moot point. The Powell incident showed disruptive protests happened outside the bounds of the politics of the student union, often at odds with the wishes of the student union itself.
An 'Bacus' editorial the week of the vote implored for a more civilised discourse around politics at the university. It was a common held belief that the far right and the far left were at each other’s throats and left no room for civility (something we also see expressed today).
The eventual outcome of the vote was a rejection of a formal ‘no platform’ policy at the university, with just over 1,200 students voting for the option ‘which compelled the Union to adopt a policy of freedom of expression for all views within the law'.
By this time, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 had been passed and there was now legal pressure on universities to 'protect' freedom of speech on campus, although student unions argued that this did not legally apply to them in most instances.
This thread is based on a blog post here:
‘No Platforming’ at Bristol University in the 1980s and Now https://hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/2019/04/13/no-platforming-at-bristol-university-in-the-1980s-and-now/
‘No Platforming’ at Bristol University in the 1980s and Now https://hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/2019/04/13/no-platforming-at-bristol-university-in-the-1980s-and-now/
You can read more about the history of 'no platforming' and free speech debates at British universities in my book.
Use code 'X001' for a 20% discount! https://www.routledge.com/No-Platform-A-History-of-Anti-Fascism-Universities-and-the-Limits-of-Free/Smith/p/book/9781138591684
Use code 'X001' for a 20% discount! https://www.routledge.com/No-Platform-A-History-of-Anti-Fascism-Universities-and-the-Limits-of-Free/Smith/p/book/9781138591684
