Feel Free to be Offended
Headmaster’s Routh Assembly Address
Monday 18th November 2019
Reading: Excerpt from “1984” by George Orwell
Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc – should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’, since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts and were therefore of necessity nameless. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.
Good Morning.
Like many of you, I studied George Orwell’s novel “1984” in English when I was at school. Unlike you, I did so before the year 1984 had actually arrived. It was then, as it is today, a chilling vision of a dystopian world in the not-to-distant future. Indeed, a future that some would say has already arrived. Long before the existence of CCTV, internet cookies, retina scanning and DNA tests, Orwell had already imagined a world where the State monitored everything you said or did. Big Brother was watching and it wasn’t reality TV.
As you just heard, Orwell had much to say on the subject of freedom of speech. That was an intriguing notion, wasn’t it? Curbing your ability to express your beliefs and opinions, not by banning you from speaking, but by eradicating the actual words you might use to express them. Newspeak was the old English language, minus any words that might be used against the Government and social order.
The example Orwell used, ironically, was the word ‘free.’ It still existed in Newspeak, but only with one of its two meanings. I made the same point almost exactly a year ago today, when I last spoke in Routh about freedom of speech. I pointed out that ‘free’ had two meanings. As an adjective it means to be able to act or do as one wishes, "I am free to speak about this." But as an adverb, it means without cost or payment. "That drink is free."
Therefore, although you are free to speak your mind, it is unlikely to ever be free from cost. I went on to say that in this School, debate and the sharing of ideas was encouraged, but part of what we must also teach you is that there is a price to be paid when we make our thoughts known. Usually that price is small, often it is positive. Sometimes though, it is worse than anticipated. I stressed back then that you must always own the words that you utter because if they cause offence, you bear the consequences. Even if there is no law against it.
What I want to suggest to you this morning though, is the other side of that argument. You do have the right to speak freely. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states it very clearly, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Notably though, there is no reciprocal right not to be offended. The famous author Philip Pullman wrote a book about religion which caused great offence to some. When challenged, he said “It was a shocking thing to say and I knew it was a shocking thing to say. But no one has the right to live without being shocked. No one has the right to spend their life without being offended. Nobody has to read this book. Nobody has to pick it up. Nobody has to open it. And if you open it and read it, you don't have to like it. And if you read it and you dislike it, you don't have to remain silent about it. You can write to me, you can complain about it, you can write to the publisher, you can write to the papers, you can write your own book. You can do all those things, but there your rights stop.”
I thought of that quote when I read the results of a nationwide survey that was released last week by a London-based think tank. They polled tertiary students throughout Britain, young people attending university just like you will be in a few years. Asked them their views on free speech. Specifically, did they feel that lecturers or visitors to their university should be banned from speaking publicly if their views might cause offence. A few examples were given; a leading feminist who didn’t support transgender rights, an academic who questioned whether the Holocaust had happened, a psychologist who champions middle-class white males.
Shockingly (to me, at least) the poll found that between three fifths and one half of those questioned failed to consistently support free speech in those cases. Fifty percent of students believed that their universities should ban people from speaking or contributing to academic debate if their views might not be the ones held by the majority. That they must ban, to use the modern jargon, “no-platform” speakers who might upset them.
Fortunately, the report also found that there is a constituency of students who support free speech. Who are paying for an education, and would like to receive one, in which they have the freedom to think and argue for themselves, without fear of social pressure. Who are aware of the important role which free speech has played throughout history in supporting freedom and challenging unjust abuses of power.
Sadly, that preciousness was not just confined to universities. In the middle of the UK’s Remembrance services last week, a young man who describes himself as a Reality TV star and lists his occupation as an “Instagram Influencer” took to national television to claim that schools should no longer teach about the Second World War because, and I quote, World War Two “was a hard situation” and learning about it “might harm pupils' mental health.”
A ‘hard situation’? The deaths of 85 million people, including the deliberate genocide of six million Jews, the collapse of nations and the destruction of trillions of dollars of property and resources was “a hard situation.”
Okay.
Number 1 – being “reality TV star” is an oxymoron. If it is “reality” TV, you’re not a star. If you are, it’s not real.
Number 2 – being an “Instagram Influencer” is not a job. I accept it may make money, but it isn’t work. It is just paid narcissism.
More importantly, Number 3 – I would rather risk bruising your mental health any day than not tell you that in the very recent past, millions perished because people allowed themselves to believe in evil ideologies. I’d rather you knew that it was important to watch out for dangerous and repugnant ideas, than protect your fragile minds by pretending that such evil doesn’t exist.
Our Millennial genius went on to say, “I don't want anyone to think I'm being disrespectful, but I remember learning it as a child thinking "Oh my God it's so intense". And he wonders why his generation are branded as snowflakes?
I do not believe that you are snowflakes. I do not believe that your minds are too fragile to hear difficult things. I do not believe that shielding you from unpleasant ideas makes you stronger. In fact, I think it makes you weak.
I am the first to acknowledge the pressures that many of you face. Thanks to the internet, you see and hear a hundred times more than my generation did at your age. Sometimes you see and hear things before you are ready to handle them. This School will always try to introduce ideas and knowledge to you at an appropriate stage. Occasionally, here or online, you may encounter things that offend you. What matters is how you learn to deal with that offence. You are all free to think, thanks in a big part to what happened in the Second World War. You must therefore also be free to be offended.
To return to George Orwell, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
Presentations
World Scholars
625 pupils from 60 countries, representing the ‘best of the best’ from around the world, competed at Yale University in the World Scholars Tournament of Champions recently. Bromsgrove was represented by a team of George Hastings, Shaan Sanghera and Nicholas Hunt, one of only five teams from the UK. They acquitted themselves well, finishing 120th out of over 500 teams.
They also won 25 medals including 5 gold and 20 silver medals for both individual and team efforts from the different categories. An impressive achievement and I invite George, Shaan and Nicholas forward to receive our congratulations.
Swimming
It was great to see so many boys competing in the Senior House Swimming Competition on Wednesday. Results: 3rd Lyttelton 2nd School House 1st Elmshurst
Junior House Rugby
In the B competition Lupton beat Lyttelton and in the main competition Walters beat Lyttelton.
Junior House Badminton
In the Girls’ competition: 1st Oakley, 2nd Hazeldene
In the Boys’ competition: 1st Wendron-Gordon, 2nd Elmshurst
Review
Tennis
Congratulations to the U16 Girls tennis team who played in the Regional Finals on Thursday. A tense match, the score level after 6 sets, so a championship tie-break was played. Josie Ward and Kelly Lin fought hard but lost 10-8 to the eventual winners, missing out on qualification for the National Finals by the smallest of margins. Well done to Izzy O’Connor, Josie Ward, Kelly Lin and Grace Richardson on coming so close.
Basketball
The U15 side lost a friendly match against Alcester Grammar whilst the U14 team beat Trinity High School and Arrow Vale in the County tournament.
Cross Country
Well done to Lucy Hatfield, Emily Dyer, Natalie Hatfield, Sophia Meadows, Will Hobbs and Callum Wilkinson who were selected to represent Hereford and Worcestershire in the Inter-Counties National competition.
Hockey
In Cup matches this week, losses for the U15s and the 1st XI unfortunately. However, well done to the U14A team who beat Shrewsbury in the Midland Zone round.
Trent College managed to get the better of the results in the matches played on Saturday.
Netball
The U15 side lost 36-27 against Berkhamstead School.
Rugby
In the block fixtures against RGS High Wycombe there were good wins for the U14B, U14A, U15A, U16B, 2nd XV and the 1st team who won 43-8.
Preview
Today and tomorrow we hold our Sports Scholarships Assessments and on Friday our Entrance and Scholarship examinations.
Tomorrow evening we host our second John Illsley Concert in Routh Hall, with over 300 visitors attending.
On Friday we are looking forward to seeing over 150 perform at our St Cecilia’s Day concert also in Routh Hall.
This Friday’s debate will be a staff versus students debate on the motion “This House believes that the government should pay known terrorists or criminals to work as informers”. The debate will start at 1.30pm at Friday lunchtime, in H20. All are welcome.
The annual Fourth Form House Drama Competition is launched today. To be held at 7.00pm, 28th January in Cobham Theatre. Each House is asked to present a 5-7 minute piece, with performers from the L4 & U4, although your director can be from any year group. There is no specific theme and you may choose to present an extract from a published piece or write a short play yourselves. At this stage could a representative from House please email Mr. Norton.
Finally, the latest edition of Two Zero One will be coming out this week. Copies in House or the library; read the thoughts of your peers on the theme "Deal With It". The theme for the next issue is “Great Expectations” and contributions, related or unrelated to the theme, are due to Vivianne by Friday 6th December. Those interested in joining the magazine team are welcome to email Vivianne or join the Tuesday lunchtime meetings at 1:25 in Futures.
Please now stand as we say the Grace together.