Sorry if this has been posted and I missed it, but the UK government is looking to introduce a bill, The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, apparently designed to ensure freedom of speech on UK university campuses. Labour has decided to vote against this, as it affords the right to sue for anyone who has had their "rights" violated under the bill e.g., been no platformed (in addition to other areas). This has support from right wing organisations who feel this is a necessary step in order to avoid self censorship on campus.
Now I know I am at odds with most on here on parts of this issue, as idealistic as I know this may be, I do think university is the place to discuss controversial ideas, and I am generally against no platforming, most of the time where I have heard of it here (or at least, attempts at it), it seems to me like it is done to avoid criticisms of ideas, or to enforce an orthodoxy of ideas, as opposed to preventing any actual harm, using the language of safety and harm to conflate criticism of ones strongly held beliefs with real world violence, which strikes me as either deeply cynical or symptomatic of potential mental health issues, though more importantly it was typically student led as opposed to institutionally led, and often didn't actually prevent people from speaking. There was a case recently of Stonewall advising a university to ban a speaker in order to avoid breaching certain laws, which turned out to be legally unsound advice, there was nothing illegal about what the speaker was about, they just didn't like her and misrepresented the law in order to stop her speaking, interpreting the law as they want it to be as opposed to how it actually is. I do find this unethical. It is also rare.
Whilst not a no platforming incident, there was a case recently at a Scottish university where a student was asked in a discussion what she thought a woman was, I hope not to derail this into forbidden areas, but in part of her answer she said she thought men were on average stronger than women (I know most here will feel that this is a controversial and hateful statement, but I also feel it likely that the vast majority of people think this is just a reasonable statement of reality), and is currently undergoing a formal investigation by the university (not simply for this, but for other comments too), prompted by complaints. The actions of some activists have the potential for a chilling effect on the expression and discussion of ideas.
However, that Toby Young (yes, I know) article defending this bill conceded, this doesn't actually happen all that often. In that case with Stonewall, they were rebuked and the university (to the best of my knowledge) apologised. In listing that case, I am not doing to to try to draw this out to say it is happening all over, because I don't think it is. I highlight it firstly to illustrate an example where I feel some are acting in bad faith (as the people who insist there is no problem are wrong in my opinion, and usually insist there is no problem because they support the dogmas being enforced), not to "protect" people but to enforce dogma, so I think in some cases things could have been handled better, but also to elicit a response of "what other examples are there?". And the answer is that it doesn't happen that often at all. Bans by the institutions are very rare. If you look there at the list on the BBC article (I know it is a few years out of date) showing banned groups by the NUS (of which there aren't many, and yes I know the NUS isn't the same as an actual university), 3 were Islamist organisations. I reference this as typically the people who want something done about this often cry that conservative voices are being silenced (I take issue with this, I don't feel that certain hot button topics are exclusively conservative), or rather that their tribe is the one under the heel. I think we can all agree that the likes of Toby Young have nothing to do with al-Muhajiroun, they are not in the same tribe, this simply isn't the NUS trying to shit down Toby Young et al. These are groups that aren't simply trying to discuss ideas, but actual extremists with histories of violence who want to recruit, a very different beast.
Whilst I will disagree with most here over whether a problem exists, one area where we will agree is that I don't think it is a big problem, and a moral panic is being created over this issue. I have highlighted a few instances of what I feel are unethical and potentially chilling actions, actions that I don't think should be encouraged, but they simply aren't happening to the extent that some (especially the likes of the Daily Mail) would try to have people believe (hence a selective reporting of incidents), and more often it is student activists as opposed to institutions themselves, and several resolve themselves without the need for any kind of government interference. Bringing in legislation like this is a massive overreaction in my opinion. There is very real potential for this to be abused. Whilst I think that universities, the NUS and student activists haven't always gotten things right, given the existence of actual violent extremist groups, there have to be mechanisms for universities to say "no" to would be speakers. The answer to a few bad decisions should not be to enforce a potential free for all. For people who often talk about wanting small government and less government interference, the selective interpretation of this mantra is highly suspect. I do not trust them to not make a mess of this, and sadly with their majority, there is nothing the opposition can do.