Statement on Bangor University debating society refusing a Reform UK Q&A
Bangor students just banned a Reform UK Q&A — and the backlash escalated fast. One side says it’s “zero tolerance” for racism, transphobia and homophobia. The other says it’s a free speech stitch‑up — with talk of £30m funding being pulled. So is this students standing up to hate… or a dangerous precedent of no‑platforming? Read more for the balanced take: where I agree, where I disagree, and the practical compromise that should’ve happened.
2/10/20261 min read
Statement on Bangor University debating society refusing a Reform UK Q&A
Universities should be places where people can test ideas in open debate — especially ideas they strongly disagree with. So I don’t support “no-platforming” a lawful, mainstream political party from a student debating event simply by applying sweeping labels, without engaging with the actual arguments that would be made on the night.
That said, students’ unions and societies are independent bodies, and they have a right to set rules for their events and to challenge speakers robustly. They’re also right to insist on a respectful environment, and I don’t dismiss concerns about racism, homophobia or transphobia — those are serious issues, and accusations like that should be evidenced and argued properly, not thrown around as slogans.
Where I think this has gone wrong is on both sides:
What I agree with
Student organisers can choose their programme and can set clear standards of conduct for guests and attendees.
A “zero tolerance” approach to hatred is reasonable — but it needs to be applied fairly, consistently, and with specifics.
What I disagree with
Blanket de-platforming is usually counterproductive. If you believe a party’s positions are wrong, the strongest answer is scrutiny and debate, not shutting the door.
Threatening to pull public funding because a student society made a decision is the wrong approach. Public funding decisions should be made transparently, through proper processes — not as a punishment or headline-grabbing retaliation.
A practical way forward
If the aim is genuine democratic engagement, there’s an obvious compromise:
Host the event with clear rules (no abuse, no harassment, no discrimination),
Ensure strong chairing, balanced Q&A, and the right to peaceful protest,
And, if the society doesn’t want to host it, find an alternative campus venue that will — while keeping it safe and orderly.
People are perfectly entitled to dislike Reform UK (or any party). But a confident society doesn’t fear questions — it faces them, challenges them, and lets students make up their own minds.
Cllr Jonathan Millard, Ebbw Vale South
