Bangor University Students’ Debating and Political Society has banned two members of Reform UK, including the democratically elected MP, Sarah Pochin, from having a Question and Answer session with its students.
It is, of course, grossly anti-democratic, not least because Wales elects its Senedd in a few months’ time. Reform will be fielding candidates and therefore voters, whether young or old, need to hear the different prospectuses.
The reasons given are spurious. A spokesman says “we have zero tolerance for any form of racism, transphobia or homophobia displayed by members of Reform UK”.
It is difficult to accuse a political party of racism and homophobia, whose last chairman was of immigrant stock and whose present one is a homosexual. As for transphobic, protecting women and making their spaces safe ain’t quite the same thing.
Yet this same society proudly proclaims itself the home for students to “challenge ideas, explore diverse perspectives and master the art of persuasion”. Diverse, meaning those ideas you agree with, presumably?
Zia Yusuf threatens to defund the University when Reform becomes the government, which is fair enough when the University authorities simply whimper that the student societies are independent and on that basis refuse to address the issue but in reality all it needs is for the same law that already applies to England to be replicated in both theory and practice in Wales, so that Universities cannot shrug off responsibility.
This undemocratic ban on Reform has one silver lining. Revenge is a dish best served cold - Ann Widdecombe | Getty Images
So let us take a look at the differences. The law obliging universities to guarantee free speech was introduced by the Tories in 2023 and amended by the current government in 2025, but England and Wales have different regulatory frameworks.
One of the key differences is that in England, implementation is based on rules and enforcement by the Office for Students (OFS), with fines for non-compliance.
In Wales, the approach by MEDR ( the Commission for Tertiary Education) relies on a collaborative and strategic approach aiming for “trust”.
The OFS has a duty to “promote” free speech and academic freedom, while MEDR merely has to “take into account” the importance of protecting academic freedom.
OFS has direct regulatory authority over student unions, but in Wales, student unions remain largely outside MEDR’s regulatory remit.
Those are just some of the differences which explain why Bangor University can afford to shrug. Impose fines and make them stiff enough as can happen in England, and they might wake up.
Yet I have never understood why the 2023 or 2025 Acts should be applied just to universities rather than more broadly to public bodies in general or to other organisations which receive public funding. That might take care of “cancellations”, a fate endured by many, as often on the basis of what they haven’t said as on what they have.
An incoming Reform government must address the wider issue of free speech and insist on a universal application, not just to specific institutions.
Of course, in a free society, private, self-funding associations devoted to a particular aim are entitled to be selective about their members and speakers, but once an organisation is open to all or funded by the public, then real democracy must prevail.
More From GB News