Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Shouting down David Willetts

Last night a lecture at Cambridge by the minister for higher education was cancelled following a stu

By Nelson Jones Published 23 November 2011 13:03

The minister had scarcely stood up before the shouting began. "Dear David Willetts" announced a student protester, at the top of his voice, as he began to declaim a lengthy prepared statement. His every sentence was repeated by a chorus of fellow enragés seated strategically throughout the hall. There were three of them sat behind me, all shouting at the top of their voices. It was a decidedly uncomfortable experience.

Initial amusement at the unexpected interruption turned to annoyance and then exasperation as the protesters (who called themselves Cambridge Defend Education) droned on and on. Their "epistle" was low on facts and heavy on pretentious verbiage and painfully mixed metaphors. Its theme was the opposition between genuine knowledge and the marketplace -- "you cannot quantify knowledge" -- something that would have made a good subject for debate after Willetts had finished speaking. But there was to be no debate. Instead, rant (for the time being) over the protesters started up a shout of "Willetts Out!" and occupied the stage.

A few minutes later, the chairman Professor Simon Goldhill -- who appeared completely wrong-footed by the turn of events -- announced that the lecture was cancelled and that David Willetts had left the building.

Introducing the lecture, part of a series on the theme of "the idea of a university" organised by Cambridge University's Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, Professor Goldhill had stressed that it was to be a robust exchange of views. "Things will be said on both sides that will be difficult to hear," he predicted. After a fairly short address by Willetts there would have been a longer question-and-answer session at which the minister's thoughts would surely have been subjected to intense scrutiny by students and academics in the audience.

It's unlikely that minds would have been changed in the process. Government policy is not made in public meetings. But the event nevertheless represented a valuable opportunity to examine the consequences of the planned changes to university funding and student finance. As a recent Guardian profile by Decca Aitkenhead suggested, Willetts is a politician with a genuine (and sadly rare) passion for intellectual debate. In an era when most political events are phoney, stage-managed affairs with hand-picked audiences and pre-arranged questions, here was a minister willing to take part in a live, unpredictable and well-informed public meeting. Even if you disagree with his policies, this is surely something to be welcomed.

Instead we were subjected to a tedious monologue by a bunch of self-satisfied protesters unwilling to listen to any point of view other than their own. A supporter of the protest, Lawrence Dunn, said afterwards that beause the government had ignored previous protests "it was therefore time to ignore what Willetts had to say". He is of course at liberty to ignore Willetts. But the people who were ignored last night were the majority of the audience who had come to listen to -- and challenge -- the minister. Their views and wishes were swept aside by the actions of an immature and intolerant minority. No doubt they genuinely care about education. But they appear to have no understanding of or interest in the process of democratic debate.

I contacted Professor Goldhill afterwards for a comment. He told me that while protests had been expected, no one anticipated that the lecture would have to be abandoned, something that "did not happen even in 1968". He regarded the events of last night as "an extraordinary opportunity missed" -- an opportunity for many of Willetts' "most articulate critics" to challenge him directly. He also described the form that the protest took as "an absolute abuse of the freedom of the university".

The university is nothing if not a place for the free and frank exchange of critical ideas. This was an attempt to stop the exchange of ideas, and was done against the overwhelming wish of the majority of people in the hall. It was made in the name of the values of the university, but distorted and destroyed those values. It was politically not just misguided by giving all the strong lines to Willetts, but the sort of totalitarian behaviour that we all should hate. In the name of giving voice to their so-called non hierarchical and open views they refused to let anyone who disagreed with them speak. You cannot shag for chastity.

Of course Goldhill is right, as is Cambridge Students' Union president Gerard Tully who released a statement accusing the protesters of violating "one of the founding principles of University education", that of freedom of expression. It was not Mr Willetts' freedom of expression which was pointlessly disrupted last night: he is, after all, not short of platforms on which to speak. Rather it was the freedom of everyone in the audience who had their own questions to ask him or who were interested in what he had to say.

It was a sad day for Cambridge and for the principle of peaceful protest, which in a democratic society we all rightly value.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: David Willetts Student protests tuition fees universities

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

28 comments

Tue, 2012-10-02 15:37 — laka (not verified)

The comments here are among the most disheartening I have read. So many contain lengthy descriptions of the arguments of the despised Minister Willets, presented, apparently to obviate the need to hear Willets himself make them. But the most casual reader of these editorials cannot fail to hear the hysteria, the partisanship, the intolerance and the license of the writers.

Have no doubt that your own comments, in other quarters, are subjected to the same treatment, and in those cases I'm sure you would consider yourselves libeled and demand the chance to state your own case (although some of you likely demand a more frightening remedy.) I have no idea why you think your right to a hearing is any stronger than Willets'.

Tue, 2012-10-02 15:03 — laka (not verified)

So now free speech is to be distinguished from the appearance of free speech, and of course, you appoint yourself the arbiter of what is real and what is the appearance. Your purity of heart, your faultless intellect, your unfailing clarity of perception will provide all the premises we will ever need to extinguish cynical politicians and PR seekers. Talk about pious!

Is it possible for you to imagine how creepy and totalitarian your vision is? If not, spend a moment contemplating the punishment you would mete out to me for writing this comment.

Tue, 2011-11-29 11:22 — Ross Wilson (not verified)

For a sharply insightful demolition of the kind of weakly thought through moral posturing advanced by pious panjandrums like Nelson Jones (and seconded by conformist cheerleaders like Alex Baldwin), see the comment by Dr N appended to J.H. Prynne's statement on the Cambridge protest and occupation here: http://www.defendeducation.co.uk/statement-from-jeremy-prynne-on-the-dis....
What the students attacked was not free speech but the appearance of free of speech being exploited by a cynical politician as a PR exercise. Was the students' protest awkward and uncomfortable? Yes. Was it a vital intevention in the apparently relentless programme to commercialise higher education? Yes.

Tue, 2011-11-29 12:19 — Ross Wilson (not verified)

And further to my last, see also George Oppitz-Trotman's excellent riposte to Simon Goldhill's condemnation of the CDE protest, here: http://www.defendeducation.co.uk/

Wed, 2011-11-23 19:42 — swatantra

Sounds like pistols at dawn then?

Wed, 2011-11-23 21:49 — Leicestersaint

Where is the pepper spray when you need it, eh Nelson?

Seriously, we need a bit more protesting about what is happening to students under this current regime.

Wed, 2011-11-23 22:06 — Joe Hill (not verified)

This is for those who do not understand why students disrupted David Willetts’s “lecture” in Cambridge, and why similar disruptive extra-parliamentary political action is now necessary. In May 2010, an election was held in which two parties — Labour and the Liberal Democrats — both of which claimed to defend the NHS and to oppose any increase in student fees (indeed LibDems manifesto claimed to commit the party to abolishing fees altogether) won a virtual 2/3 majority of popular votes. The party which took power, however, was the Conservative party. The Conservatives with the Lib Dems, and against the will of the people, against the views of doctors, nurses, academics, students, all the stakeholders in health and education policy, have proceeded to force through parliament a system of extremist policies, policies which attack the foundation of the health of the polity and of British civilisation. It is the Con-Dems — the Conservatives by their ruthless insensitivity to public opinion, and the LibDems by their craven betrayal of their own principles — who have unbalanced the constitution. They have forced politics into the streets and public places, and are making ordinary citizens remind parliament that we have only delegated to them our own sovereignty. We invest our sovereignty in parliament, it does not belong there, when parliament acts abusively we retake our liberties by whatever means necessary. There remain large numbers of people who confuse the survival of theatres of dialogue like parliament, or lecture rooms at Cambridge, with democracy. Unfortunately, the platform offered to Willetts last night, and the whole theatre of “liberal debate” that was about to unfold, had only one possible consequence– which is why Willetts agreed to come — which is to add to the illusion that we have democratic government which attempts in any way to be accountable to the will of the people. For many academics, who themselves live in a world governed by real debate, and who have a certain vanity about their persuasive powers, there is the illusion that a few well-argued points can affect government policy. This government however listens only to the opinions of the wealthy individuals and corporate interests who buy a stake in policy making both at the ministerial and civil service levels. This is no longer business as usual in British democracy, and those who pretend it is are both deluding themselves and betraying their own civic responsibilities. There come times in the life of a people when the old manners are no longer suit the need of the age. There are times for action in collective self-defence. This moment is one.

“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice….
Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money…  Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God’s help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.
I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.
Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.   In the name of God, go!

Thu, 2011-11-24 01:38 — kenny jenkins (not verified)

Two Brain-Cells needs to learn that there are consequences to his actions. I call this a start.

Thu, 2011-11-24 09:57 — Yossarian (not verified)

The default reaction of most people has been to criticize the students for not upholding the freedom of speech tradition. To me, as someone who does not frequently find himself thinking about such philosophical subjects, this is puzzling for the following reasons:

1. Isn’t that right just what the students are trying to defend? If anyone thinks that after going down the market forces route, there will remain any ‘freedom of speech’ in universities I have a very attractive Nigerian investment opportunity for them. Talk to people who have been denied tenure in prestigeous US schools because they signed particular petitions.

2. Did the protesters actually take Willetts’ right to speak away from him? This man is a government minister. He has the media standing by his doorstep 24/7. Every word of his is carried by prestigeous publications. More importantly, the students and Willetts are in a highly unequal relationship. It is not a matter of denying the right of the BNP or some rabid Mosque Imam to free speech. They have no power over the students. Willetts does, and has shown it by the way he has shoved the changes down our throats, whether we like it or not. If someone abuses his or her position (by no stretch of imagination did the people give him a mandate to triple tuition fees) so blatantly, and with such utter disregard to our rights, are we still obliged to let him deliver sermons on the opposite to us? Wouldn’t listening to Willetts amount to legitimizing his changes – he can then go and enter this ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’ as a consultative exercise in his ledger. Aren’t the colonized justified in telling the colonizer to piss off? Willetts has already screwed the university enough, do we now have to show him respect too?

Thu, 2011-11-24 14:16 — LyingTories (not verified)

Well done to those students in Cambridge who stood up to Willetts.

Willetts treats students with contempt yet expects to be treated with deference and respect himself.

It's time two brain-cells got the message that his ideas are not welcome.

Wed, 2011-11-23 13:40 — Ben Etherington (not verified)

http://flammaepulchritudine.blogspot.com/2011/11/cambridge-surprise-davi...

Wed, 2011-11-23 13:47 — swatantra

Halfabrain Willets should be used to being shouted down in the Commons. Proper students should be prepared to listen to both sides of the argument thats what they are there to do in college. Becausethere never is s clear definitive black and white answer to any problem. Students should be open to listening to different points of view, even if they fundamentally disagree, and use their vote at the next election.

Wed, 2011-11-23 13:57 — Ben Etherington (not verified)

David Willetts is responsible for a set of reforms, currently being implemented, which threaten the capacity of universities to maintain the institutions of free speech and critical thought. To pretend that this talk was a matter of free exchange of ideas is deeply nonsensical. You do not debate with your executioner, you try to stop him!

Wed, 2011-11-23 14:05 — Alex Baldwin (not verified)

@Ben

The only things tortured in that piece of yours are the metaphors. You do Kierkegaard a disservice in appropriating one of his pseudonyms.

Wed, 2011-11-23 14:14 — Jack7

what an awful conservative piece of rubbish this article is.

Willets and the entire government shove their misinformation down our throats on a daily basis through the pathetic establishment media and then you expect students to allow the same crap on campus?

What's the point in debating with politicians if they don't give a shit what you think anyway?

Wed, 2011-11-23 14:25 — gimpy

Those complaining about Willetts own deafness to criticism of his policies have a point. I've experienced a Willetts visit, stage managed to the extreme, no uncontrolled meetings with staff, no offer of engagement, just a tour of a vetted area with the appropriate Potemkin Villages erected.

However, the disturbance of one of the few opportunities to tackle Willetts directly is deeply disappointing.

The Coalition are in the process of dismantling HE and making it the preserve of the middle classes and the privately educated as well as damaging, perhaps irrevocably, the UK's research base. Willetts needs to be questioned about this, not given the opportunity to run away from engagement.

Wed, 2011-11-23 14:38 — nineteensixtyseven

Oh get over yourself, Nelson. As if anyone would be talking about Willetts and the White Paper again today if a handful of academics meekly asked a few unanswered questions in a lecture. The legislation has passed, his mind is made up; shutting him down and launching an occupation ahead of the strikes next week is a much more effective way to challenge Willetts and the government.

Wed, 2011-11-23 15:04 — Dave (not verified)

We no longer need to listen to the likes of Willets. A bought minion of corporatism does not deserve to be listened to.

He had no intention of listening to his audience or changing policy. If they won't listen to us we will not listen to them.

It's time for democracy.

Tue, 2012-02-07 07:53 — Benedict

Capitalist politics is infintely more 'totalitarian' and violates the 'founding principles' of democracy; this protest highlights the farcical nature of engaging in debate. 'Painful' things may have been heard, but it would not have made a jot of difference to history, except to the individuals involved who may have felt a bit wounded or relieved at their involvement. http://www.diykitchenremodeling.net/

Wed, 2011-11-23 15:06 — Keir

'However, the disturbance of one of the few opportunities to tackle Willetts directly is deeply disappointing.'

So he fixed it himself?

Wed, 2011-11-23 15:15 — Ben Etherington (not verified)

@Alex

It is not my piece. Thanks for the insult though - a great service to this discussion.

Wed, 2011-11-23 15:42 — Alex Baldwin (not verified)

@Ben

So it's someone else's piece and you thought it was worth sharing?

Cheer up. If you didn't write it then you weren't insulted.

Personally, I don't think "time for democracy" means "time to put an end to debate".

Wed, 2011-11-23 15:43 — Lawrence Dunn (not verified)

Hi there,

Thanks for citing my article. Yes, I sympathise with Simon Goldhill - and I too did want to ask some awkward questions. Nevertheless, I think the action (I wasn't privy to organising meetings) sent a more powerful message. Some awkward questions put to David Willetts, no matter how well worded, do not amount to a news story.

The other key point to make is that the situation is seriously backwards--who's denying democracy here? I don't remember any Tories (Willetts or anyone else) coming to speak to students after their protests. This meeting, if we're going to talk about democracy and free expression, should have happened this time last year.

In any case the occupations that are now being established, building towards Nov 30th are important, and whatever people's opinions are about the Willetts intervention, its important we get together and not allow ourselves to be divided.

That's what I believe and I hope you and other readers here agree.

Wed, 2011-11-23 15:47 — Alex Baldwin (not verified)

"whatever people's opinions are about the Willetts intervention, its important we get together and not allow ourselves to be divided"

What kind of message is this supposed to send? "Shut up and agree with us already?"

Wed, 2011-11-23 15:53 — Alex Baldwin (not verified)

@Lawrence

"Some awkward questions put to David Willetts, no matter how well worded, do not amount to a news story."

If all you wanted was a news story why not hit him in the face with a pie? That worked so well the last time it was done. The focus should be on the uncoerced force of the better argument.

Wed, 2011-11-23 16:08 — swatantra

The Student's Revolt managed to herald the demise of the Lib Dem Party last time round. If the Students use their power more sensibly they could even bring down the Coalition.

Wed, 2011-11-23 16:25 — Euan McArthur (not verified)

We are talking about an event here that amounts to nothing more than a talking-shop, a sop to those eejits that still hold illusions about democratic debate within the confines of our society. Aside from the fact that these policies are already being implemented, does the fact that Labour, the Liberals, and the Conservatives, all strongly neoliberal parties, disavowed tuition fees and then reneged on that policy not offer some proof that the irresistable logic of capital (all three claim it is 'inevitable' in an elliptical manner) may hold greater sway over a minister than a bunch of students packed into a hall with 'opinions'? Capitalist politics is infintely more 'totalitarian' and violates the 'founding principles' of democracy; this protest highlights the farcical nature of engaging in debate. 'Painful' things may have been heard, but it would not have made a jot of difference to history, except to the individuals involved who may have felt a bit wounded or relieved at their involvement. Do Willett's personal characteristics entail that he will do anything different in the job to another Conservative minister, or a Labour one, or a Liberal one? No.

Wed, 2011-11-23 17:14 — TC (not verified)

We don't have to listen to anyone who isn't listening to us. Willets doesn't deserve anyone's respect as a debater at this point. Consensus processes have shown themselves to be masks for authoritarian railroading.

The period for debate is over, the only question now is this: which side are you on? The lines are drawn increasingly clearly.