Good evening.

Two weeks ago the Prime Minister called on John Denham, and me as a minister, to invite the university sector to lead a debate on how we maintain academic freedom whilst ensuring that extremists can never stifle debate or impose their views.

When the PM made his speech, he may not have been aware that the last time I spoke about academic freedom, the Daily Worker described my intentions as being "to further attack the right to conscience and to outlaw any values unless they abide by the norm of British chauvinism".

Let me therefore start with an apology. My views are nowhere near so exciting.

But they may be controversial. Though I make no apology for that: the debate I'm opening up tonight is an important one. The events of last night are testament to just how important the issues surrounding freedom of speech are to many people – and I will come to that later.

It's hard to talk about cohesion, freedom, academic freedom and extremism without getting into choppy waters. If nothing else, all of us here will agree it's a difficult area. And that's exactly why I'm going to talk about it. I'll go further – I think it's my duty. It's my job – as a politician – to deal with difficult issues. Politics is about finding a way through when people passionately disagree.

You might not agree with my views tonight, but I hope you agree it would be a much worse, and more dangerous, state of affairs if no politician dared talk about these issues for fear of controversy. I also want to say that I've been asked to start a debate, not issue the university sector with a fait accompli. If you disagree with what I say tonight, join the debate; we live in a constantly changing world; our freedoms must be redefined in the context of the new challenges and threats that face our society.

As the Prime Minister recently said in his recent speech on liberty, "to each generation falls the task of expanding the idea of British liberty and to each generation also the task of rediscovering liberty's central importance as a founding value of our country and its animating force". This is the challenge we're facing today. So tonight, I offer a starter for ten and invite you to join in. I look forward to the debate progressing.

Tonight, I want to talk about two issues. First, as the director general of MI5 has told us, we face a real and sustained threat from terrorism. Yet Britain as a nation tends instinctively towards liberty, and historically has led the world in espousing its virtues. Our history of liberty – as one writer has called it, our "gift to the world" – should shape our task. The central challenge is to strengthen the resilience of communities to resist extremist influence and root out terrorism at the same time as preserving the freedom we value so much, and which define our traditions.

In response, I will suggest that in academic freedom lies one of the most powerful means at our disposal to refute violent extremist views on campus. And further, I believe that unless it is used actively to challenge those views, then academic freedom will find itself undermined by violent extremism. It is the responsibility of all of us – university staff, students and administrators, as well as the Government – to find a way to square the circle of upholding academic freedom while protecting our society.

Second, the Prime Minister has also called for an "enhanced effort to win hearts and minds" in our battle with extremism. Absolutely key to this effort is our quest to develop our sense of shared values. I want also to talk about the shared values that bind communities, especially academic communities; how we must foster these values in universities; and how we protect those communities against forces that would tear them apart. In this context I will argue that academic freedom is enormously important, both in itself, and as a means to and end.

I will argue that academic pursuits, like society itself, have rules to enforce observance of common values. Without them, there can be no freedom worth having. Higher education, as a community of scholars, must in my view use the shared values that govern intellectual inquiry to challenge and expose the faulty thinking of those who advocate extremist views. And I will suggest that, if we want our universities to remain citadels of free thought and inquiry, then the Government and the academic community have a shared responsibility to uphold the values that make this possible.

Shared values

The key to winning the hearts and minds of our communities – all of our communities – is to develop a common sense of shared values. The Government believes there is merit in a fuller articulation of the ideals and principles that bind us together as a nation, which is why in the coming months we will be engaging the public in a debate aimed at developing a British statement of values. This will be an inclusive debate, because the values we prize in a liberal democracy like Britain are not the possession of any one race, creed or nationality. Rather, they are universal values, but values that have defined modern Britain and what it means to be a British citizen today.

At the heart of British citizenship is the idea of a society based on laws which are made in a way that reflects the rights of all citizens, regardless of class, ethnicity, religion or gender. Alongside that sits the right to participate, in some way, in their making; the idea that all citizens are equal before the law; the right of all citizens to associate freely; the right to free expression of opinion; the right to live without fear of oppression; the idea that there is an appropriate balance to be drawn between individual rights and mutual obligations.

That balance will form a key part of discussions on a proposed Bill of Rights and Duties, on which the Government will soon be consulting the public. Such a Bill would undoubtedly include the right to freedom of speech, which is fundamental to the academic community.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights itself holds that freedom of expression carries with it responsibilities as well as rights, and that it "may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society".

Since a majority of people pass through Further or Higher Education at some point in their lives, it is absolutely critical that these institutions foster these shared values. If our students learn to respect both the right to disagree and the right of someone else to disagree with them, universities will have played an important role in embedding our core values in the rising generation, thus preserving them for the future.

Therefore, we must consider the environment and culture of FE and HE provides students and the community, as well as the specifics of the balancing act between liberty and security. In this context, our primary question should be "do universities and colleges help to forge shared vales?"

Or, rather, how can we move beyond just protecting our campuses from a small number of dangerous individuals and groups, to ensuring that universities and colleges help to protect us all by fostering shared values?

Before I attempt to do this, let me be clear – shared values are experienced, not taught. They are built. Over time. By people. Sharing ideas, understanding other views, and tolerating disagreement.

Any university worth the name must support a cohesive community for all. And all institutions have a responsibility to promote solidarity and good relations between all groups.

While recognising that some groups of students may properly wish to promote their own religion and cultural identity at certain times, campus authorities must act to prevent segregation and promote integration wherever that is possible. Those institutions which are segregated will fail in the pursuit of new knowledge because there will not be a cross-fertilization of ideas. They will fail to attract talented individuals to work in them. They will fail in their duty to provide a rounded intellectual formation for their students.

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.

The ability to hold open debate, to discuss and challenge ideas is essential to the core objectives of a university. This applies both to a student's formal and informal education. Therefore, universities must cultivate a framework of values which prize openness, respect, tolerance and the importance of rigorous debate. Such a culture enables people to come together to share and discuss views with those with whom they disagree, in a respectful and constructive manner.

By fostering these shared values, we will provide an environment with the trust and respect in which we can deal more productively and collaboratively with any conflict arising from difference of culture, ideology, or faith. Yes, that includes responding to the threat of people who wish to exploit the freedom of a university to take part in, or advocate, violence.

But also, 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.

This is the Government's preferred approach, because the alternatives risk only pushing extremism underground. By dispelling extremist views which favour violence, we will protect our community from danger. And after all, our first priority is for the safety of students, staff and the community as a whole.

Clearly, none of that absolves universities of the need for vigilance against potentially criminal activities and of the duty to take action where such activities come to light.

In saying all this I do not want to suggest that universities should or do spend all their time debating perverse theories. There is a much more important and positive aspect to their work. Universities are institutions designed to spread knowledge, culture and mutual understanding, not just on campus but throughout wider society. That includes greater understanding of the Muslim world and Islamic civilization. We should therefore welcome the continuing growth of Islamic Studies in our higher education system.

Freedom

Now, to the crucial question of how we should balance the necessity for freedom of expression against the need for rules to create an environment in which the exercise of that freedom is possible. That question is relevant not just to universities, but to all communities.

However, almost any discussion of freedom quickly turns into a discussion of its limits. No one who has thought seriously about freedom for the last four hundred years has believed it to be absolute. No sane person believes that society should live by the law of the jungle – that we should be free to murder or to rob a bank when we feel like it. As John Locke put it, "where there is no law, there is no freedom".

Academic freedom

I believe passionately in freedom for academics. I also believe that if students are not free to explore ideas and to challenge accepted wisdom, however wrong-headedly, that they miss half of the point of a university education.

But academic freedom is not only important as a value in itself. Academic freedom leads to progress.

Universities have such a track record in pushing society forward. Without freedom to explore taboo subjects and explore outrageous ideas, we wouldn't make progress.

We need our best brains to challenge convention and conventional wisdom. We need them to challenge the established order and the political elites.

There are so many examples of this to choose from. Emily Davies and Barbara Bodichon, who established Girton College in 1870 to pursue the revolutionary idea that higher education should be open to women. In South Africa, not only the students and academic staff, but also the campus authorities of Fort Hare University and the part they played in the anti-apartheid movement.

History has judged Nelson Mandela to have been right to call for resistance to an evil regime when no other means were open.

But I do not believe that history will judge those who try to persuade young British Muslims, who could live to help shape the future of this country in so many positive ways, to kill themselves and others in the same way that it has judged Nelson Mandela.

I know that there are academics who believe that their freedoms are constantly assailed by Governments of every stripe. And people who call for it to be given stronger legal protection.

I know there are those who compare the state of academic freedom in this country unfavourably with the rest of Europe. But I don't think that many of them can have actually worked in a continental university. For example, you will struggle to find an example in modern British history of the Government seeking to intervene in a senior academic appointment. In the cases of many of our neighbours, you would not have to look so hard.

We would do well sometimes, to reflect on how much freedom we take for granted.

These days, our universities do not enforce, as they once did on pain of death, obedience to the Pope, or to the 39 Articles. They no longer burn heretics, recusants or the books of Copernicus and Galileo. They encourage the study of authors like D H Lawrence or James Joyce, who were once banned.

In the last century, we saw academics killed and their books burned just because of their race, or because their thinking did not fit in with the official State doctrine. That was not just a product of Nazism. Fine Russian biologists were persecuted for thirty years because Lysenko's fraudulent genetics were found more politically acceptable.

And there are still countries in which academics who act within the written law are persecuted and sometimes killed. Books are still burned and major writers banned.

Limits to academic freedom

There are already, and always have been, limits to academic freedom.

For me, we must be prepared to limit the ability of an individual to act freely only where it is necessary to safeguard the freedom of the community. In other words, the protection of academic freedom requires some limits to personal freedom. This principle applies irrespective of whether we are speaking of a community of scholars or the community at large.

Let me take just two obvious examples.

First, no reputable scholar would argue that academic freedom includes freedom to falsify or suppress evidence. Likewise, none would advocate freedom for one academic to plagiarise the work of another. It is worth noting that rules like these have not been imposed from outside, but are the product of scholars' own shared views of the ethics of their profession.

Universities would not, and could not exist without such rules. These rules define the very essence of what a university is: it is not just a body of students and teachers, but a way of conducting inquiry, with rigour and integrity.

There are different sorts of freedom that apply to academics: freedom of thought, freedom of exploration and freedom of expression. I would argue that freedom of thought must be absolute in all circumstances. Anything less is too Orwellian to contemplate.

Freedom of exploration, however, is not an absolute. Would anyone seriously argue that academics should be entirely free to carry out whatever experiments they liked on animals and humans? I hope not. An overwhelming majority of their fellow citizens would not find that acceptable, which is why in vivo experiments are strictly regulated and experimental environments are governed by formal ethics machinery.

The same goes for freedom of expression, perhaps the thorniest area of all. Here again, I would argue that freedom cannot be limitless. Indeed, the law does not permit it to be so. A person is free to think that they ought to go our and promote racial or religious hatred. They are free to think that they ought to try to persuade other people to commit a crime. But, in a liberal democracy, there is a difference between thought and action. In our society, no one is free to preach hate or cause crimes to be committed.

Academic freedom is limited by peer pressure

Academic freedom is partly, but not wholly, prescribed by law. Einstein said that "Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression". He was right. It is also true that it is not laws alone that limit freedom.

I suspect that few UK academics would say that they feel free to say or do anything at work that isn't actually illegal. In the real world, freedom is constrained from all sides, not just the rule of law.

The greatest constraint on the freedom of individual academics in this country is not the law, but peer pressure. That may manifest itself in different ways. As comparatively recently as my own student days, subjects like film studies or women's studies used to be called "Mickey Mouse" It took a strong will to pursue them and to uphold them as serious academic pursuits. And we are constrained by societal norms of course. There may be taboos now which in 20 years time, will be entirely acceptable.

Standing out against prevailing orthodoxies has also always taken courage. As Voltaire is supposed to have put it, "I may not approve of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

The sorts of limitations on freedom that I am talking about can take even more unpleasant forms. You may recall the outrageous persecution of Professor Colin Blakemore by animal rights extremists. Those involved in animal experimentation have long-since become accustomed not just to intimidation, but often also to living with the threat of physical violence against them and their families.

I can do no better than quote President Eisenhower who, at the height of the McCarthy hysteria told a university audience: "Don't join the book-burners". Unless everyone involved in higher education is prepared to stand up for free speech, even when we disagree profoundly with what is being said, then we risk losing the right to speak freely.

Freedom and violent extremism

Nevertheless, as I said earlier, individuals' right to free expression cannot be boundless in a society which aims also to guarantee the freedoms of the wider community. So where do we set the limits of academic freedom today, in a post-9/11 world where the means of mass destruction are increasingly common currency?

I do not want to overstate the menace that we face from violent extremism. To do so would be rash. But we do face a threat. Those who deny it are naïve and just plain wrong in failing to recognise the reality of the threat. And a government would be irresponsible if it did not act to protect those who elect it. As the Prime Minister reminds us "freedom belongs to the people, not the government". And there is no real freedom at all if people face violence and disruption in their daily lives.

How far does legitimate academic study of the forces that drive extremists extend? In my view, it must be to the furthest limit of inquiry before reaching the point of active encouraging criminality.

Indeed, the Siddiqui report published earlier this year argued, rightly, that the intellectual environment in the UK or in wider Europe has not so far allowed sufficiently open discussion of many of the issues facing Islam and Muslims in the world today.

It follows that I think it is entirely acceptable and indeed necessary for academics to seek to understand and explain why suicide bombers do what they do. What is not acceptable is to encourage other people to blow themselves up.

This clearly has implications for the study of violent extremism. Academics should be free to study its roots and causes. They should be free to analyse the history and politics of regions and countries afflicted by it. Most of us would recognise that without such study, we will be less well equipped to defend ourselves properly.

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.

There is a clear distinction here between views that you or I might find deeply offensive, and actions that are criminal, or support criminal activity. We have to tolerate the expression of abhorrent views in the name of free speech and free inquiry. But we cannot and must not tolerate those who incite or carry out violence in the name of abhorrent views.

I cannot say too often or too clearly that the academic community has a responsibility not to propagate violence and to challenge those who would. And that higher education institutions are responsible under the law for ensuring that both that their students are safe and that their campuses to not becoming breeding-grounds for violent extremism. And it's worth saying that universities have acted in a way that lives up to these responsibilities, for which we praise them.

Higher education must defend the rights of all students. In the past, the advocacy of extreme views directly fuelled intimidation and sometimes even violence against students of other faiths or of differing views. We still do receive reports of this, as we do of Muslim students and Jewish students coming under pressure to adopt dress codes or other religious practices. Again, over and above their probable illegality, the problem with these activities is that the run against a fundamental value of higher education and the shared values which higher education is duty-bound to promote.

So I would argue that the action we want higher education institutions to take in tackling the exploitation of universities by extremist groups, and by tackling any vestige of pressure or intimidation by advocate of extreme views, we are supporting a proper defence of the fundamental value of academic freedom. One of our common values that we would want all young British people to share.

It does follow, however, that those institutions which prefer not to confront these issues - whether university leaders, university staff or student bodies - are themselves undermining academic freedom and the very values on which they work should be based.

Free speech cuts both ways

The right to free speech and to open debate cuts both ways. The leaders of our universities can and must stand behind people who would challenge extremist views on campus. They must be ensured a platform.

That is why I do not support boycotts and no-platform policies. After what you have heard it won't surprise you that I wouldn't want to legislate against Nick Griffin and David Irving speaking at a university. Since 1965 incitement to racial hatred has been a crime, we have recently strengthened these laws and if they are broken we would expect the authorities to take action. I find the views of both speakers utterly nauseating but that's not the same as saying that as a matter of principle they should be banned from speaking.

I say let give people the chance to challenge their views through free debate. Not the criminals, but those whose words remain within the law, whether they come from extreme religious groups, the BNP, the Animal Liberation Front or elsewhere. And let their views be exposed and challenged for the falsehoods they are. By not allowing them to be heard, we undermine the unsaid, but more important message, to students: that we value tolerance and open debate.

And let history judge them.

Rights and responsibilities

I have argued that the activities of extremists which need to be challenged by academics are akin to the other types of activities which academics resist anyway: bad reasoning, misinterpretation of data, denial of contrary evidence, and so on. Academics have a duty to uphold the integrity of academic pursuit,

Further, academics have a responsibility to use the tools of their trade to challenge violent extremism whenever it rears its head. Extreme and challenging views have always had their place on campus and long may this continue. But violence does not. And we must not tolerate it, or those who incite it.

The freedoms that academics have come to expect work against violent extremism. The rules of academic discourse create less fertile ground for the propagation of those views.

And in any case, banning extreme groups pushes them underground, into covert operations which operate in secret, or in intimidating environments. Universities must be open to the light of free debate and free inquiry. Because if they are not, they will become places of darkness, obscurantism and fear.

Last year, the government published guidance for Universities on dealing with extremism on campus. Some people would have you believe that the Government is expecting universities to keep their Muslim students under surveillance.

That is entirely untrue.

Academics and students alike must be free to go where their intellects lead. They must be free to discuss ideas and to say exactly what they think of me, my colleagues in Government and the society that we and our predecessors have helped create.

But at the same time they are not separate from society. The privilege of academic freedom, the privilege of power to help shape young minds, also brings grave responsibility.

Part of that responsibility, an important part, is for members of the scholarly community also to function as full members of the wider society in which they live. They must recognise that our society does face a threat which differs in scale and nature from that we have experienced before. Just like the rest of us, they have to be aware that there must be a trade off between liberty and security.

Asking people to be aware of reality hardly amounts to the Barbarians standing outside the gates of academe.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen,. I have argued that the way to prevent violence is the very same way that we encourage community cohesion. We must cultivate shared values of tolerance, openness and rigorous debate. Academics and students alike must be prepared to defend those values.

The hard-won heritage of free and open debate in our universities is precious. It drives us forward as a progressive society. It is also the best mechanism we have to challenge extremist ideas, and the root cause of violent extremism.

I've been asked to open the debate on maintaining our hard won academic freedom whilst ensuring that extremists can never stifle debate or impose their views. I don't pretend to have even touched the tip of the iceberg of the issues, let alone concluded. Indeed, as the Prime Minister has said "It is the challenge and the opportunity for our generation to write the next chapter of British liberty in a way that honours the progress of the past – and promises a wider and more secure freedom to our children".

As I said earlier, freedom belongs to people, not governments. It is your freedom that we cherish, and we want to protect. My invitation to you all is to take part writing this new chapter in the story of British liberty.

Thank you.

 Back To Academic Freedom in the 21st Century