The Cambridge Debate: A true vehicle for free speech?
Wikimedia Commons
In the first instalment of his column, Adam Durrant argues that the Cambridge Union’s debating style has had its value to political discourse unchallenged and overstated, and we should be concerned about it.
To some, the arrival of a new Cambridge Union president who seems to steer clear of controversy marks a ‘return’ to the ‘market-place of ideas’ it paints itself as. But we must ask, is the Union’s modus operandi actually the free, and healthy, exchange of ideas it claims to be? This question is a pressing one. Institutions like the Union are well known for their far-reaching influence: a training ground for young politicians, a favourite of the tabloids, and now, spilling over into government institutions. At a time when the so-called ‘culture war’ is high on the agenda, the Union’s style of debate, where two teams try to win over a crowd, has had its value to political discourse unchallenged and overstated, and we should be concerned about it.
My issue lies with the very character of debate and its fundamentally combative nature: this hinders any argument that it champions your right to speak as you wish. The chamber is created with division in mind; there is no middle ground, just an empty no-man's-land. You are forced to occupy a partisan position, and with that, any nuance in the discussion is at great risk of disappearing. To some this may not present a problem, but think on this: a feminist and an ecofascist may support free access to contraception with equal fervour, but their arguments would differ wildly. Yet, the chamber would place them side by side, as teammates; their intentions are all too easily misrepresented. We saw this in action recently in the infamous right to offend debate, exemplifying how difficult it is to dissociate from a ‘teammate’ in an effective way. The product of this divide? Miscommunication, and quite probably insult to the parties involved in the debate. That does not sound like a space conducive to true free speech.
Combat, however, goes beyond the simple drawing up of two sides. The very premise of these debates is to produce a winner and a loser. There is no agreement when all is said and done and the two sides remain separate. This extends even to the audience; when asked to pick a side, they unintentionally give weight to all of those arguments, which may vary massively. Good, sound, valuable arguments are left uncelebrated, and poor, potentially hateful arguments, are applauded without due cause. As a side effect, the audience loses their right to freedom of expression and the ability to voice their own nuanced arguments in this space. So, too, is the voice of the debaters affected by this atmosphere; in attempts to win over individuals, they are encouraged to use techniques which are underhanded, or, in extreme cases, misrepresentative. Whether it’s twisting the words of their opponent or just simply using complicated and funny rhetoric to befuddle the crowd, a great deal of damage can be done particularly when sensitive issues such as identity are concerned. You do not have to look very far to see clips from the likes of Jordan Peterson taken out of context, showing dramatic put downs which are completely false, yet these are very persuasive in certain contexts. Neither are you given the opportunity to sincerely express partial agreement with an opponent and remain a contender in the race. The freedom to speak your mind and have it understood is at real risk. If you are looking to have a ‘culture war’, then the Union Chamber is the ideal battlefield.
More importantly, the most insidious and dangerous aspect of the combative nature is its depiction as a neutral and fair playing field, when it is far from it. As I alluded to above, debate can be and is manipulated, especially under the Union’s structure (take a look at the political affiliations of those who ran for president this Michaelmas). Someone has to invite speakers and set debate motions, and in doing so set the tone and rhetoric of the debate. They can control its direction, and thus public opinion on particular issues, by excluding or including certain voices. The debate is not conducted on an equal footing, so how can free speech truly exist in that space? This vulnerability to biases makes debate a subtle form of policing speech and political discourse. It is far from the bastion of free speech some would say it was.
That said, this is not a criticism of the Union’s existence. In fact, I think it has a place in the Cambridge community, as debate has in our culture. Rather, the criticism is of the Union’s perception of itself and the reverence we place upon it. It is not a safe space where all and any ideas can be challenged appropriately. Nor will the manufactured ‘culture war’ come to a peaceful end in the Chamber - it can only be won or lost - and that is a terrifying prospect for many who may suffer as a result of some of the views which have already been put forward to the Union crowd. As an influential public body, we need to be more responsible with who we allow to access spaces of power. We, whether a member or otherwise, should be aware of the Union as a political tool, and be ready to call it out when it encroaches on other people's freedoms. No, the Union style debate is far from an adequate vehicle of the freedom of thought in public society.