Workshop 1
Reading lists:
Malcolm, F. (2020). Silencing and Freedom of Speech in UK Higher Education. British Educational Research Journal, [online] 47(3).
Sammary:
In this article, Malcolm (2021) explores whether freedom of speech is genuinely under threat in UK universities or if this narrative has been exaggerated. He argues that media coverage often amplifies isolated incidents like no-platforming or disruptive protests, creating a sense of crisis that doesn’t reflect the actual scale of restriction. Instead of just discussing “freedom of speech,” Malcolm introduces a more nuanced concept—silencing—which includes both legal restrictions and subtle, often invisible forms of pressure that cause people to self-censor.
He creates a taxonomy of silencing, including:
- Pre-emptive silencing (e.g., disinviting speakers before they arrive),
- Passive inhibitive silencing (e.g., students feeling too intimidated or afraid of judgment to speak), and
- Illocutionary silencing (when someone speaks, but their words are ignored or dismissed).
Malcolm finds that while extreme forms like no-platforming are rare and usually justified, passive silencing is more widespread and concerning, especially among Muslim students and those with conservative views, who feel pressure to stay quiet in certain environmentsMalcolm 2021 Silencing ….
He also discusses the role of government policies like the Prevent Duty, which, though intended to stop extremism, can create a “chilling effect” on free speech—leading some students to avoid controversial topics or even hide aspects of their identityMalcolm 2021 Silencing ….
Ultimately, Malcolm argues that universities must look beyond headline-grabbing debates and start addressing the deeper, more nuanced issues around who feels heard—and who doesn’t—in campus conversations.
Reflective Writing:
Reading Malcolm’s article made me realise how deeply all three types of silencing—pre-emptive, passive, and illocutionary, exist around me and within me.
As a woman of colour, I’ve often avoided talking about politics, particularly anything related to China. I’m very aware of how Chinese politics are framed in the West, and I’ve seen how easily a conversation can turn uncomfortable or hostile, even when my intention is just to share a personal view. Malcolm (2021) describes this type of pre-emptive silencing as a form of self-censorship, where people choose not to speak because of the potential risks or misunderstandings, especially in politically charged contexts.
I’ve also experienced illocutionary silencing as an international student. In group discussions, I sometimes hesitated for a long time before speaking—because I’d already learned that sharing my thoughts could lead to awkward silence or be ignored altogether. When everyone else seemed to agree with a dominant opinion, I started assuming my perspective wasn’t valuable. As Malcolm (2021, p. 5) points out, “silencing” can happen when students feel like their voices won’t be heard or respected, even if they are technically allowed to speak.
These reflections have made me reconsider how I create space for discussion. I’ve started thinking about using prompts like, “Does anyone have a different view?” or “Can you think of an alternative example?”—not just to encourage participation, but to signal clearly that it’s safe to disagree and to bring in personal perspectives. It’s not enough to say “this is a safe space”; we need to actively build that space through how we respond to difference.
As a lecturer from China, this adds another layer of complexity to how I think about classroom dialogue. I’m teaching in a Western institution where freedom of speech is often associated with directness, debate, and open confrontation of ideas. Meanwhile, I come from a cultural background that also values freedom of expression, but often expresses this through more indirect or context-sensitive communication. In many Chinese contexts, there is a strong emphasis on harmony, relational respect, and timing—people often speak with awareness of how their words might affect group dynamics or social relationships. So I often find myself balancing between these two communication styles. I don’t want to avoid difficult topics, but I’m also mindful of how different students, especially international ones, might feel overwhelmed or exposed in open debates. My goal is to create a space where students can express themselves freely, but also thoughtfully, with awareness of the diverse cultural lenses in the room.
Freedom of speech, to me, isn’t just about the right to speak—it’s about being heard, being safe, and being seen as part of the conversation.
I’ve also been thinking about the role of 1-to-1 support sessions in breaking silencing patterns. For many students, especially international ones or those from underrepresented backgrounds—the classroom can feel like a performance space, where there’s pressure to say the “right thing” or follow dominant views. But in a one-to-one setting, they’re often more willing to share thoughts, ask questions they might feel embarrassed about in front of others, or even challenge ideas in a safer, more personalised environment. I now see 1-to-1 sessions not just as academic support, but as a space to validate individual perspectives and gently encourage more confident participation over time. It’s a quiet but meaningful way to help students reclaim their voices.
References
Malcolm, J. (2021) ‘Silencing and Freedom of Speech in UK Higher Education’, Education and Self Development, 16(3), pp. 4–13. https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.16.3.01