CANCEL CULTURE DEBATED AT SHELDONIAN

A large audience gathered at the Sheldonian Theatre on Tuesday 21 October to exchange fiercely divergent views about 'cancel culture' for the latest event in the Sheldonian Series, which is open to all and aims to promote freedom of speech and inclusive inquiry.

The Vice-Chancellor opened the event and the discussion was moderated by David Isaac, Provost of Worcester College. The panellists comprised Sunder Katwala, Director of the British Future think tank; Helen Mountfield KC, Principal of Mansfield College and trustee for Index on Censorship; Zoe Williams, journalist, columnist and author at The Guardian; and Lord Young of Acton, General Secretary of the Free Speech Union and Conservative peer.

The panel exchanged divergent views about free speech on topics including political party Reform, the impact of social media in shaping how information is exchanged, antisemitism, the current political landscape in America and racism in football.

Talking points also focused on the First Amendment of the US Constitution and its protection of freedom of speech, the culture of exclusion and a framework for curious cultures to disagree well, to what extent democratic freedom should be given to individuals who want to use it to undermine democracy, the relationship between what you can say and what you should say, and the weaponisation of process.

A roving microphone ensured the evening was interactive, with audience members including current students asking questions. One student asked the panel for their views on whether discussion around cancel culture disproportionately benefits ‘right’ or ‘left’ in politics. Another asked about whether censorship could be effective.

Tim Soutphommasane, Chief Diversity Officer at the University of Oxford, provided the closing remarks.

Reflecting on the event, Professor Irene Tracey CBE, FRS, FMedSci, Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, said: ‘It was wonderful to welcome such a large audience to the first Sheldonian Series event of this academic year. We established this series last year as a forum to promote freedom of speech and inclusive dialogue, which is at the heart of what we do and who we are as a university. We debate diversity of thought and ideas based on reason, fact and truth with respect, kindness and generosity of spirit. This year the Sheldonian Series is dedicated to the theme of ‘power’ and I am grateful to all the panellists for joining us in a lively exchange of views on ‘cancel culture’ for our Michaelmas term event.’

Panellist Helen Mountfield KC said: ‘A true exchange of ideas and perspectives is essential for a plural, participatory democratic society. But upholding genuine freedom of expression for everyone requires some form of moderation. I participated in this event because I wanted an open curious discussion about where the boundaries should be, whether enforcement is social, political or legal, and how we protect the right to receive and impart ideas for everyone.’

Panellist Sunder Katwala, Director of British Future, a non-partisan think tank and charity that focuses on issues of identity, said: ‘The ‘cancel culture’ debate is often about the sharpest culture clashes about democracy and identity. Our leading universities can often expect to find themselves at the epicentre of these debates – since they have always been key sites of how arguments about ideas, power and voice play out between and within different generations. How universities can get their role in this right will matter for our broader democratic culture.

‘When I look across the Atlantic to America, I see the stark costs and the risks to democratic institutions if an ever more heated politics seems to turn opponents into enemies, shrinking civil disagreement and making any sense of common ground feel ever more elusive. Few people in Britain will want to emulate or import that increasingly violent polarisation. I felt this Sheldonian Series event at the University of Oxford, by seeking to model what it means to secure free speech in principle and practice, offered a potential glimpse of a constructive next phase of how we can talk about free speech.’