Rammell said he opposed boycotts and 'no platform' policies because the best antidote to offensive and extremist views was to expose them to critical scrutiny in open debate.

Academic freedom necessarily involves the study of violent extremism and 'to seek to understand and explain why suicide bombers do what they do'.

'Some academics will conclude that some violent extremism is rooted in deeper social, political, religious or economic problems. Some may even argue that it is justified. Again, the space for inquiry must be rigorously defended, so long as they are open and open to challenge and so long as the legal restrictions on the promotion of violent extremism are respected'.

"What is not acceptable is to encourage other people to blow themselves up', he said.

Rammell said that academic freedom depended on the shared rules and values of free inquiry, which must be upheld.

Rammell described his speech as a 'starter for ten' as he invited the university sector to lead a public debate about 'how we maintain academic freedom whilst ensuring that extremists can never stifle debate or impose their views'.

'Universities are not just inert repositories of open debate and intellectual challenge. They should be the most active propagators of it. The university should be asking first not be whether someone holds controversial views, but how, within a university, such ideas are discussed', he said.

'A community based on shared values will enable us to seek to convince, via rational argument, those who hold the sorts of extremist tendencies that are the enemies of rational argument. Such a community will be able to challenge misconceptions and expose flawed argument, as well as to uphold the rights of those who hold minority opinions'.

'The alternatives risk only pushing extremism underground', he argued. Because the argument for free speech cuts both ways ' I do not support boycotts and no-platform policies … I wouldn't want to legislate against Nick Griffin and David Irving speaking at a university, he said.

 Back to Academic Freedom in the 21st Century