The No Platform policy of the NUS is guaranteed to generate its own little storm every time it comes up for renewal in student unions up and down the land. Students splutter angrily into their pints of lager at the temerity of their opponents in the matter to voice their opinions. Inevitably, the spirit of debate is a little pressed around this time - a cocktail of youthful assurance, intellectual ferment and irregular sleep patterns can wear down congeniality just a shade. Yet the centre piece of this debate - the No Platform policy - continues to persist in existence.

I have never had much time for this piece of archaic, illiberal policy. It is the NUS’ own little Test Act - a screen of ideological or political purity before individuals can access the full resources of the Union at the University at which they are a student. It is contrived as a screen for the promotion of security of the student body, especially minorities in that body, by preventing the official organisation of groups deemed to be “fascist”, the official interaction of Union officials with these bodies in debates, the use of Union buildings to hold meetings or standing in elections. 

The NUS has attempted to defend this as in “no way” diminishing the freedom of speech of those affected by this policy. I am unsure as to what frame of reference this remark is gleaned from; if you cannot participate in official debates because of your political alignment, then your rights have been diminished. The policy is also defended on the groups that these groups can still assemble in public. Any group can assemble in public; but if you are a student at a University, paying into that institution’s common pot, why should you be excluded from the same level of access as others merely on the basis of political identity? 

Most insidious of all is the attempt to define this as a measure for enhancing the “security” of those on campus who are often the target of the politics of the restricted organisations. Given how the policy is defended by arguing these groups can still assemble in public and how most campuses are not hermetically sealed environments from the outside world, I am unsure how barring groups from the Union immediately prevents these groups coming onto campus anyway. I do not feel that my liberty is enhanced by trampling down that of another - I feel alarmed that it is felt to be of little concern that this is considered an acceptable approach.

Finally, we must turn to the issue of debate. If we are to defeat the groups in question (an aim I share in, incidentally) then we must engage them in debate if we are to overcome their arguments. One does not simply wish or prohibit away a political issue. This becomes especially important when the groups you are dealing with thrive on their exclusion from the debate - they are identified, arguably, with being outside the establishment and draw their votes and strength from this identification. By reinforcing their message, by continuing to exclude them, we are simply feeding into the problem. We are richer for a debate that includes all voices, regardless of how repulsive we may find them.

If the NUS is committed to democracy and freedom then it should be fearless in the defence of these values. I entitled this blog “Armour-Plated Liberalism” for precisely these reasons - we must be fearless in the advocation of our liberal values, even if that means defending the extension of the rights we fight for to those who oppose those same rights. Democracy does not thrive by pushing people out and by deciding who is fit to even arrive at the debate before it has begun. Liberty is not extended by drawing up lists of prohibited organisations. This country scrapped the Test Acts in 1828 - it is time the NUS caught up, and did away with No Platform once and for all.