Lord Hague warns of ‘comfort blankets of cancellation' in defence of free speech
Lord William Hague vowed to champion free speech and warned against 'comfort blankets of cancellation' as he was officially admitted as the 160th Chancellor of the University of Oxford.
During his formal admission ceremony, the former Conservative leader said freedom of speech and of academic work and research 'will be of paramount importance' in an age where ideas change rapidly.
Lord Hague told hundreds of attendees at the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford that encouraging 'free thought and speech without hatred' was a possible test for institutions.
The demands of this age of change will require funds, and larger endowments. I will do everything I can to support the efforts to raise them
Lord William Hague, Chancellor of Oxford University
The Chancellor welcomed the Labour Government's decision to revive a number of provisions of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.
In his speech, he said: 'We cannot prepare for the turbulent decades to come by shielding ourselves from inconvenient arguments, wrapping ourselves in comfort blankets of cancellation, or suppressing minority views because they conflict with the beguiling certainty of a majority.'
Lord Hague added: 'Our university is a place where we can disagree vigorously while sheltering each other from the abuse and hatred that are so often a substitute for rational opinion.'
But the Chancellor warned that debating global issues should 'never be an excuse for antisemitism or any other kind of religious or ethnic hatred'.
He added: 'I am pleased to say we don't need a foreign policy because we are not a country.
'Nor do we need a view on every daily occurrence because we are not a newspaper.
'The concern of a university is that opinions are reached on the basis of truth, reason and knowledge, which in turn requires thinking and speaking with freedom.'
Lord Hague, who will serve for a term of 10 years, was making his first speech as the university's chancellor on Wednesday.
Alumni and academics turned out in regalia for the admission ceremony – where many sections of the event were spoken in Latin.
Lord Hague received the university's statutes, keys and seal as part of the traditional ceremony.
The former Tory leader left the theatre to a fanfare of trumpets in procession with senior university figures.
Lord Hague won the election for the role in November, beating Sarah Everard Inquiry chief Lady Elish Angiolini and Labour peer Lord Peter Mandelson.
The election was called after Lord Chris Patten announced his retirement after more than 20 years in the position in February last year.
During his wide-ranging speech, Lord Hague said the university would also be in the 'front line of fighting the darker side of the new technological age' which he said contributes to anxiety and loneliness among young people.
He said: 'In Oxford we have the great strengths of personal tuition, college communities and high achievements in sports and music.
'It should always be a place where we seek each other's company, not stare into smartphones.'
Lord Hague also said he would try to increase investment for the university.
He said: 'The demands of this age of change will require funds, and larger endowments.
'I will do everything I can to support the efforts to raise them.
'I am looking forward to meeting thousands of our alumni at home and abroad, and to encouraging even more of them to give their time, service and resources to the university that helped release their talents.'
Oxford staff and alumni voted online for the first time to elect the chancellor – a post which has been in place at the institution for at least 800 years.
The chancellor is the titular head of the university and presides over key ceremonies.
They also undertake advocacy, advisory and fundraising work, acting as an ambassador for the university at a range of events, and they chair the committee for the selection of the vice-chancellor.
Professor Irene Tracey, vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford, said: 'I am delighted and honoured to welcome Lord Hague back to Oxford as our new Chancellor.
'His deep connection to the university and his commitment to its values, mission and vision will serve this world-class institution well during his tenure.
'He is a man of considerable integrity, wisdom and dedication. I look forward to working closely with him in the years ahead as we uphold and strengthen Oxford's legacy of excellence.'
In the final round of voting, Lord Hague received 12,609 votes, 1,603 more than second-placed candidate Lady Angiolini, chairwoman of the inquiry into Sarah Everard's killer Wayne Couzens.
Lady Angiolini, outgoing principal of St Hugh's College Oxford, and Baroness Jan Royall, outgoing principal of Somerville College Oxford, had both hoped to become Oxford's first female chancellor.
Labour grandee Lord Mandelson and former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve were also among the final five candidates.
Lord Hague graduated from Magdalen College Oxford in 1982, where he studied philosophy, politics and economics (PPE) and was president of the Oxford Union.
He was leader of the Conservative Party between 1997 and 2001 and Foreign Secretary between 2010 and 2014.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Primary school pupils using screens for tests is ‘normalising' use, Tories claim
Shadow education secretary Laura Trott said the Government was instilling screen usage for children as young as four, as the Government came under pressure to ban smartphones in schools. Ms Trott said the policy was supported by teachers, health professionals and parents. She said: 'Every day we have new evidence of the harm screens are doing. So why is the Education Secretary (Bridget Phillipson) ignoring this, and still pressing ahead with screen-based assessments for children as young as four from September? 'Does she accept that this is normalising screen time for young people, which is the opposite of what we should be doing?' Education minister Stephen Morgan said: 'Is this all she can go on? Frankly, after 14 years, they broke the education system. As I said, there's guidance already in place for schools, the majority of schools already have a ban in place on mobile phone use.' Earlier in the Commons, Mr Morgan had told MPs mobile phones had 'no place' in schools. He said Government guidance said schools should ban the use of smartphones during the school day. However ,he said it was up to schools to use their powers to take them off pupils. Shadow education secretary Laura Trott claimed the Government was normalising screen time for young children (Stefan Rousseau/PA) Conservative MPs raised the links between mobile phone usage and violent behaviour, as well as schools with bans having better grades on average. Conservative MP Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) said: 'Schools with smartphone bans were rated higher by Ofsted, and their students achieved better GCSE results. So all the evidence shows the benefit of banning smartphones in schools. 'But the Government is simply issuing non-statutory guidance and passing the buck. So does the minister not understand the evidence, need more evidence, or do you not trust the Government to be able to implement a ban on smartphones in schools?' Meanwhile, John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) said: 'Mobile phones in classrooms are linked to disruptive and violent behaviour. So does the minister agree with me that mobile phones should be banned in all schools, so the children are focused on their education and not glued to Instagram and TikTok?' While in government, the then Conservative education secretary, Gillian Keegan, sent guidance to schools that told headteachers they could ban mobile phones during the school day. However, this was short of an out-and-out ban. Since their election defeat last year, the Conservatives have pushed for Labour to introduce a full ban. In March, it tried to amend Labour's flagship education policy to legally prohibit smartphone usage. A Government spokesperson said the existing guidance meant about 97% of schools restrict mobile phone use in some way. Studies are unclear on the impact of a smartphone ban. One by the University of Birmingham, published in the Lancet earlier this year, suggested there was no link. Replying to Ms Bool, Mr Morgan said: 'I'll take no lectures from the benches opposite on this. When in government, they exclaimed the same guidance meant a consistent approach across all schools. So you have to ask, were they wrong then, are they wrong now?'
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Primary school pupils using screens for tests is ‘normalising' use, Tories claim
Shadow education secretary Laura Trott said the Government was instilling screen usage for children as young as four, as the Government came under pressure to ban smartphones in schools. Ms Trott said the policy was supported by teachers, health professionals and parents. She said: 'Every day we have new evidence of the harm screens are doing. So why is the Education Secretary (Bridget Phillipson) ignoring this, and still pressing ahead with screen-based assessments for children as young as four from September? 'Does she accept that this is normalising screen time for young people, which is the opposite of what we should be doing?' Education minister Stephen Morgan said: 'Is this all she can go on? Frankly, after 14 years, they broke the education system. As I said, there's guidance already in place for schools, the majority of schools already have a ban in place on mobile phone use.' Earlier in the Commons, Mr Morgan had told MPs mobile phones had 'no place' in schools. He said Government guidance said schools should ban the use of smartphones during the school day. However ,he said it was up to schools to use their powers to take them off pupils. Conservative MPs raised the links between mobile phone usage and violent behaviour, as well as schools with bans having better grades on average. Conservative MP Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) said: 'Schools with smartphone bans were rated higher by Ofsted, and their students achieved better GCSE results. So all the evidence shows the benefit of banning smartphones in schools. 'But the Government is simply issuing non-statutory guidance and passing the buck. So does the minister not understand the evidence, need more evidence, or do you not trust the Government to be able to implement a ban on smartphones in schools?' Meanwhile, John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) said: 'Mobile phones in classrooms are linked to disruptive and violent behaviour. So does the minister agree with me that mobile phones should be banned in all schools, so the children are focused on their education and not glued to Instagram and TikTok?' While in government, the then Conservative education secretary, Gillian Keegan, sent guidance to schools that told headteachers they could ban mobile phones during the school day. However, this was short of an out-and-out ban. Since their election defeat last year, the Conservatives have pushed for Labour to introduce a full ban. In March, it tried to amend Labour's flagship education policy to legally prohibit smartphone usage. A Government spokesperson said the existing guidance meant about 97% of schools restrict mobile phone use in some way. Studies are unclear on the impact of a smartphone ban. One by the University of Birmingham, published in the Lancet earlier this year, suggested there was no link. Replying to Ms Bool, Mr Morgan said: 'I'll take no lectures from the benches opposite on this. When in government, they exclaimed the same guidance meant a consistent approach across all schools. So you have to ask, were they wrong then, are they wrong now?'
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Dutch identify obstacle to Nato's defiance of Putin: geese
The rearmament of Nato is being undermined by European Union rules on emissions and the welfare of seals and geese, according to a leaked Dutch report. European members of the alliance are under pressure from President Trump to increase military spending and are seeking to bolster defences against the threat from Russia. A conference in the Hague next week will set higher spending targets. However, EU red tape is seen as strangling operational plans to expand barracks and hold exercises, a report by the TNO, a Dutch government scientific advisory body, has said. Many Cold War-era military bases in the Netherlands and beyond are close to nature reserves, putting their expansion in breach of emissions and environment certificates and in some cases preventing fighter jet pilots from training there. The report, which was leaked to De Telegraaf, noted that plans to station F35s at Lelystad airport faced environmental protests and legal challenges because of noise and disruption to nearby breeding grounds for geese. North Sea naval exercises, meanwhile, have been constrained because of concerns about the impact on marine wildlife, especially seals, of underwater explosions. The report said finding ways to bypass the rules was 'an operational necessity and a strategic and political priority', adding that they limited 'national and allied defence capacity and thus affect the collective defence of Dutch and Nato territory. 'If there is less space to train and house people, if equipment maintenance can no longer be carried out, or if new equipment cannot be deployed sufficiently, this has a direct impact on the personnel and equipment readiness of the armed forces.' Recent judicial rulings on emissions in the Netherlands are seen by the TNO as limiting new permits for extra equipment, such as tanks or jets, that runs on fossil fuels. EU climate change legislation may also affect future fighting ability by restricting the mining of metals critical to military hardware. Jakub Jaworowski, the Polish minister responsible for defence procurement, said Europe's adversaries, such as Russia, or rivals like China, were not constrained in this way. 'It is a real dilemma. You have the defence of Europe on one side, and on the other side, legitimate environmental objectives,' he said. 'We need to defend Europe. Our adversaries do not care much for the environment.' Nato military planners have previously complained that EU red tape, particularly customs forms, have stood in the way of military manoeuvres, cross-border convoys and vital ammunition shipments to Ukraine. Each item of equipment requires sheaves of paperwork and authorisation can take months. Earlier this month 11 countries, including Germany, signed a letter demanding that the European Commission 'address the legal obstacles for operational readiness of our armed forces and defence organisations, in addition to addressing legal obstacles to the defence industry … Some EU legislation forms a direct obstacle to the armed forces for fulfilling their tasks.' Highlighting clauses in the EU treaty to stop European legislation from preventing 'armed forces from carrying out necessary activities to become operationally ready', the letter concluded: 'Right now, it does.' Ruben Brekelmans, the Dutch defence minister, said in a Paris speech two months ago: 'The EU should cut the red tape preventing us from going faster and being better than any adversary. Certain EU environmental legislation prevents the military from conducting exercises and from expanding our bases. Of course the environment is important and should be protected, but Putin won't be deterred by a sign warning him that he's about to enter a nature reserve.'
