The public lecture due to be given by Dr Matthias Kuentzel on the evening of Wednesday 14 March was cancelled neither for any reason of censorship, nor because of pressure from any interest group. It was cancelled because the University authorities were not given enough notice to provide the normal level of portering, stewarding and security for a controversial public event in the Conference Auditorium on the subject of the Middle East.
Policy and practice
The University of Leeds is committed to promoting and positively encouraging free debate, enquiry and, indeed, protest. This means that it tolerates a wide range of views, political and academic, even when they are unpopular, controversial or provocative.
It does not mean that the right to freedom of expression is unfettered. It is limited by the law, for example laws to protect public safety and for the prevention of disorder or crime (including incitement to religious or racial hatred).
The University will intervene to inhibit free expression of ideas on the campus only if
(a) it cannot reasonably guarantee public safety and public order; and/or
(b) it has grounds to believe that a particular event would be unlawful.
Controversial meetings
Our code of practice for freedom of speech (1) requires organisers of public events on campus to notify the University Secretary if the event could be controversial. The Secretary’s office will make necessary arrangements, in consultation with the organisers and the Head of Security, to ensure that the event can take can take place safely (always provided that the event is lawful). The University cannot responsibly allow an event to take place without the appropriate arrangements in place.
In considering what safety arrangements need to be made for any particular event, the Secretary’s office carries out a risk assessment covering a range of factors such as the nature of any controversy, previous experience with any comparable events, the size and accessibility of the venue, and the size and nature of the audience expected. A clear distinction is drawn between events open to the public and, on the other hand, lectures, seminars and talks which are part of the University’s curriculum or series of research seminars.
We would normally expect a potentially controversial public lecture in the Conference Auditorium to require about twenty people to provide stewarding, portering and security. This does not mean that we need twenty burly bouncers to keep warring factions apart. It is simply a question of the safe management of an event that is potentially controversial, open to the public and held in what by University standards is a large venue. We need to be able to deal with different types of problem as and if they occur. For example, we need to be sure of keeping aisles and access routes clear.
It is not just controversial events that are judged to require a reasonably high level of support. The standard complement for a degree ceremony, for example, held in a venue comparable to the Conference Auditorium, is thirteen porters and security staff, plus several ushers.
The Middle East
Given the multi-national nature of the campus, public talks on the Middle East typically attract large and lively audiences; passions, and tempers, can run high. There has been no experience of violence at any such event in Leeds, but there has been fighting in such circumstances in at least one other British university. Public lectures on this subject are potentially controversial (and therefore subject to the arrangements outlined above). Dr Kuentzel himself accepts that his area is controversial (see spme.org/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=1960 ).
Dr Kuentzel’s lecture and seminars
Dr Kuentzel’s public lecture was arranged some weeks ago at the initiative of two members of our department of German. It was apparently advertised on campus (and presumably elsewhere) about a fortnight before the event – under the name of the Department of German – with the title Hitler’s Legacy: Islamic Anti-Semitism in the Middle East. It was not listed on the University’s main events database and corporate website, although it featured on the German Department website.
The University authorities have never been officially notified of the lecture – notwithstanding the requirement (see above) that the Secretary’s office must be informed of potentially controversial events. In saying this, we are not seeking to point a finger of blame at the organisers, but simply stating a fact. We recognise that we need to review room-booking arrangements to ensure that the requirement in question is clearly accessible and always read and understood by those making bookings.
The University Secretary (Roger Gair) was made aware of Dr Kuentzel’s lecture the day before (13 March) when he received three e-mails from Muslim students complaining about it. Those e-mails, sent to a combination of University officers, including in two cases the Vice-Chancellor, contained no threat – of disruption or otherwise. They are relevant only because they drew the Secretary’s attention to a potentially controversial public lecture of which he was previously unaware. Controversial meetings attract comment and criticism; communications such as these about public meetings are a regular occurrence. As a matter of fact, more complaints were received calling for the cancellation of a talk by an Israeli diplomat in the same venue the day before; that talk went ahead (2) .
The Head of the Department of German (Professor Stuart Taberner), under whose aegis the public lecture was to be given, also received copies of the e-mails of complaint. He concluded that the title of the lecture was potentially inflammatory, especially given the University’s large Muslim population, and suggested to the organisers that it be changed. The lecture was subsequently re-titled The Nazi Legacy: The Export of Anti-Semitism to the Middle East. The decision to change the name lay within the Department of German, and was not requested by the University authorities.
Having been alerted to the lecture, the Secretary contacted the Head of German on the afternoon of Tuesday 13 March to ask about the arrangements for the lecture. They discussed the difficulty of making the necessary arrangements in the time available. Professor Taberner undertook to make further enquiries, including (in the interests of assessing the degree of controversy) further enquiries about the subject-matter of Dr Kuentzel’s talk.
The University Secretary, the Head of German and the Head of Security (Steven Exley) met at 9 am the following morning, the day of the lecture. (The Acting Dean of Arts (Professor Frank Finlay) and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Professor John Fisher) were also consulted, by telephone and in person respectively.) On the basis of the information then available to them, they agreed that the lecture was indeed ‘controversial’ within the meaning of the University’s protocol; that it would need a reasonable level of stewarding and security; and that, in the time available, it was not possible to muster that level of support. It was therefore agreed that the talk could not go ahead as planned.
The Head of the Department undertook to convey this conclusion to the two organisers of the lecture, which he did by e-mail in the first instance. Later in the day, he spoke to Dr Kuentzel himself, and explained the decisions and the reasons for it. Dr Kuentzel was also advised later that afternoon by the Director of Media Relations (3) (Vanessa Bridge) of the reasons for the cancellation. Ms Bridge apologised for the cancellation, and confirmed to him that the two planned seminars could go ahead as far as the University authorities were concerned (see below).
The seminars
It had been planned that Dr Kuentzel would also give two internal seminars (on Thursday 15 and Friday 16 March respectively). Those seminars were not raised at all in any discussion between Professor Taberner and Mr Gair on 13 or 14 March. As internal academic events, they did not raise the same issues of safe event management as the public lecture, and there was no question of their cancellation by the University authorities.
Although the University authorities never contemplated, suggested or implied the cancellation of the seminars, there was a communications breakdown which led the organisers of the event to believe on 14 March that the seminars as well as the lectures had been cancelled: in one e-mail that day, the Head of the Department of German had said that he thought that they would not be able to take place. This statement was given in good faith at the time, but without reference to Mr Gair or anyone else in the central services. However, later that day Professor Taberner informed the organisers that he was not yet sure whether the same security concerns would apply to the seminars; and first thing the next day (15 March) he sent an e-mail clarifying that the seminars were not cancelled. In addition, as noted above, Dr Kuentzel himself had been informed in the late afternoon of 14 March that the seminars could take place as planned.
The future
Whilst wholly convinced, even with hindsight, that the decision was correct in the circumstances, we regret that it was necessary to cancel Dr Kuentzel’s lecture. The German Department, with the full support of the University authorities, intends to invite Dr Kuentzel to deliver his lecture in Leeds at a future date.
The University remains utterly committed to academic freedom and freedom of expression within the law.
MICHAEL ARTHUR
Vice-Chancellor
VANESSA BRIDGE
Director of Media Relations
STEVEN EXLEY
Head of Security and Support Services
FRANK FINLAY
Acting Dean of the Faculty of Arts
JOHN FISHER
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
ROGER GAIR
Secretary to the University
STUART TABERNER
Head of the Department of German
1 The University has had a code of practice on free speech [www.leeds.ac.uk/timetable/codeofpr.htm ] for two decades; following a wide consultation exercise initiated in December 2006, that code was replaced from 22 March 2007 by a new protocol on freedom of expression [www.leeds.ac.uk/about/freedom/ ]. The requirement to notify the Secretary’s office of any potentially controversial talk is common to both (though the characterisation of ‘controversial has changed).
2 The Secretary’s office was notified of the event the week before, and the organisers (the University’s student Jewish Society) worked with the University authorities to make the necessary arrangements to ensure public safety and order. Not counting the diplomat’s own personal security staff, there were about thirty stewards, porters and security staff (some being provided through the Jewish Society itself) – a level above the normal ‘default’ of twenty for controversial public events on the Middle East.
3 In response to a telephone call from Dr Kuentzel, staff in the Secretary’s office tried on about eight occasions to ring Dr Kuentzel towards the end of the afternoon of 14 March; previous calls having gone unanswered, it was Ms Bridge who eventually spoke to Dr Kuentzel on the Secretary’s behalf.
