Platforming and Free Speech: Academia Caught Off Guard in Malaysia

In April 2024, Universiti Malaya (UM) invited an America-based political scientist, Bruce Gilley, as a Visiting Professor. After a keynote address on campus about Malaysia serving as a middle power, he posted a thread on X about his talk and called out Malaysia’s role in advocating for “a second Holocaust”, making it seem like this supplementary note in his speech was a key message needing wider dissemination. This ignited a firestorm among Malaysian netizens and resulted in his subsequent talks being cancelled and the rest of his visiting fellowship revoked. Gilley fled the country the next day, citing that he was feeling unsafe despite there being no credible threats to him.

The axe fell on the organisers of the event, who were accused of platforming a known Zionist. Gilley has also gained infamy for his article, The Case for Colonialism, and has posted articles expressing hardline support for Zionism ⸺ and a penchant for provocation. As Malaysia is a country that strongly supports the Palestinian struggle against genocide, this episode called into question why there was no due diligence conducted on the background of this speaker, which would have clearly revealed him to be a colonial apologist and Zionist supporter. Why would Malaysia and its top university, which opposes Zionism, host a Zionist and give him a platform?

Some Malaysian online voices who identify as liberal also stepped into the fray, arguing that universities should not ban or exclude scholars for their views as that is detrimental to academic discourse and diversity of ideas. This free speech argument has its merits.

However, when taken to an absolutist extreme, free speech is problematic in today’s media landscape as the landscape of political discourse has been transformed by polarisation and ideological opportunism amplified through social media. There is an ongoing debate that giving a platform (or “platforming”) to individuals does not necessarily fall under the protection of freedom of speech or diversity of ideas, especially if they have been known to engage in bad faith debate or hate speech against vulnerable communities.

Firstly, academia has and continues to see itself as the standard bearer of knowledge and space for in-depth philosophical debates on current issues. Supporting this ideal has required that academia maintain a level of objectivity towards many political issues, to ensure that there is no bias and to allow for debates from multiple sides. Hence, it is important for universities to serve as open venues, allowing debates from across the political spectrum.

However, engaging in academic (and political) debates, whether formal or informal, requires certain foundations and assumptions among those involved. Persons who reject, ignore, or flout these rules are deemed “bad faith” debaters who manipulate and twist discourses with fallacies, misinformation, and even outright lies. Their goal is not to argue on facts and sound arguments but to win at all costs.

The academic community should maintain objectivity, especially when engaging in difficult topics, and should be prepared to change stances (if convinced). Debates should be conducted in good faith ⸺ no personal attacks, emotional manipulation, or distraction ⸺ and be based on factually correct information, and must not advocate or promote violence.

Universities need mindset shifts and better practices to ensure that their spaces are not abused by bad faith debaters seeking to misuse university platforms for political reasons.

In fact, the United States, often regarded as the bastion of freedom of speech, limits these freedoms under the clear and present Danger Doctrine, especially for speech that declares violence on others. As such, there is no such thing as completely unchecked free speech. Most people would draw the red line at the advocacy of violence and harm. Those who cross the line ⸺ such as by showing distinct support for a type of Zionism which actively denies the rights of Palestinians and seeks to displace them ⸺ arguably relinquish their free speech rights.

Secondly, freedom of speech is mainly focused on ensuring the government cannot censor or prevent individuals from speaking; it does not mean that people have a right to any available platform. Free speech grants people the autonomy to enter a university to protest and demonstrate, but it does not mean the university must give any person a podium and megaphone to an invited audience.

With the audience in focus, the discourse on freedom of speech has extended beyond the act of expression and broadcasting, increasingly placing weight on the platforming of voices and perspectives. With the rise and even normalisation of more extremist or “far” political ideologies, platform providers must be extra mindful about who they platform or host on their events and programmes.

Universities have a responsibility to avoid platforming groups that promote intolerance, hate and violence against the vulnerable, marginalised and minorities in society. Organisers and hosts are now seen as being responsible for the actions and reputations of invited speakers and guests, whose bad faith debate may even be taken as a reflection of the organisation’s politics and values. An organisation’s decision to platform any individual or group can be seen as a free speech exercise, but this does not exempt the organisation from consequences and repercussions.

It is, therefore, entirely fair to criticise UM for hosting a known neocolonial reactionary. This debacle suggests a failure to conduct substantial background checks that go beyond the box-ticking metrics of publication records, which the university and Malaysia’s higher education system may need to address.  

Universities cannot invoke the frequently used excuse that they are practising academic freedom and diversity of voices in hosting controversial characters. Universities need to apply a more nuanced understanding of freedom and diversity, which may entail firm decisions against platforming public figures. This latest debacle blew up because Zionism, the matter at hand, is highly contentious and visible, but based on the current Malaysian tertiary education practices, the platforming of bad faith debate occurs in other contexts ⸺ and will likely happen again in the future. Universities need mindset shifts and better practices to ensure that their spaces are not abused by bad faith debaters seeking to misuse university platforms for political reasons.

2024/142