Oxford’s woke new censorship body is a threat to free expression – Telegraph.co.uk

Until my term expired a few weeks ago, I was editor-in-chief of the Cherwell, Oxford Universitys oldest student newspaper. It isnt a big operation, but it is independent. Founded in the 1920s, and supported by advertising revenue and college subscriptions, it will only remain in business so long as it retains the interest and loyalty of its readers. And that is what I thought was the point of journalism: not to print only what those in authority want us to, but to publish in the public interest, without fear or favour.

Sadly, not everyone seems to agree. Consider Oxford Student Unions recent vote calling for the setting up of a Student Consultancy of Sensitivity Readers. The name may be innocuous, but the idea behind it is chilling: to vet what student papers like the Cherwell publish in order to ensure that no problematic or insensitive content appears.

Surely, you might think, it is only under the worlds most oppressive regimes Putins Russia, or Xis China come to mind that journalists have their articles inspected by an external body of censors prior to publication? But the student union apparently does not see it this way. It believes articles are being printed that are implicitly racist or sexist or just generally inaccurate and insensitive. And that this justifies, in effect, stripping student papers of their editorial independence.

As another former Cherwell editor, the journalist Michael Crick, told the Telegraph: The key thing about journalism is it should remain independent for people in authority, and if the students union dont like it they can set up their own. The irony is that the student union does run and fund its own paper, The Oxford Student. If it really wants to impose troubling new editorial standards on its own newspaper, it can do so, and see whether readers (or the volunteer journalists) appreciate articles that have been vetted by a committee. But any attempt to extend the scheme to external publications would be horrifying. We dont even know what the consequences of breaching the policy will be, including whether there will be disciplinary action against those who refuse to participate.

And surely the policy fails on its own identity politics-influenced terms. Who is meant to be doing the vetting? As a disabled woman, I imagine that I would be considered well-qualified to judge the sensitivity of some articles based on my lived experience. But my lived experience is only of my own disability, not that of others. Especially at Oxford, where there is such a variety of backgrounds, no group of sensitivity readers could ever be large enough to cover all the issues that could be discussed in articles.

None of this was apparently considered before the motion was passed. If student papers had been informed that this vote was taking place, we could have mounted a defence and pointed out that we have our own rigorous editorial integrity processes in place.

If Oxford students dislike what their paper prints, then they can stop reading it. If this isnt enough to satisfy their outrage, they are free to lobby their college to unsubscribe or send in an official complaint. Student papers shouldnt have their independence compromised just because a student union committee thinks they arent being sensitive.

More:
Oxford's woke new censorship body is a threat to free expression - Telegraph.co.uk