making feminist sense of no-platforming

On 18 November 2015, feminist stalwart Germaine Greer delivered the prestigious Hadyn Ellis Distinguished Lecture to Cardiff University. Although the lecture itself passed with little incident, the invitation sparked a bitter debate over the right to protest speakers invited to university campuses.Cardiff students were unhappy with the invitation because of Greer’s trans-exclusionary feminist1 views and subsequently organised a petition calling for the lecture’s cancellation. ‘Universities should prioritise the voices of the most vulnerable on their campuses, not invite speakers who seek to further marginalise them’, the petition argued. ‘Allowing Greer a platform endorses her views, and by extension, the transmisogyny which she continues to perpetuate’.2 The university ignored the petition despite the collection of over 3,000 signatures. Greer initially withdrew from the event in anticipation of student pickets but eventually reconsidered, and the event went ahead as planned.Although many speakers have been denied a platform on campuses in the past, the coverage of the feminist-led petition against a feminist with Greer’s credentials was a watershed moment. The debate rages even more intensely as a student declined an invitation to sit on a panel with gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, citing Tatchell’s racist and transphobic views. Though neither Greer nor Tatchell were actually no-platformed, this has not stopped the media from declaring that free speech and the health of UK universities are under threat (Dandridge, 2015; Harding, 2015; Nelson, 2015; O’Neill, 2015; Taylor, 2015; Anthony, 2016; Meredith, 2016).Many feminists find themselves positioned on opposite sides of a debate framed as a tug of war between supporters of no-platform/safe space policies and freedom of speech advocates. Some argue no-platforming is anti-feminist, whereas others view it as an exercise in free speech brought on by a thriving feminist student movement. How are we, as feminists, to read it when such politics are used against supposed fellow travellers?Using an intersectional feminist analysis, I dissect what I see as the four key issues that continually arise in the debate over no-platforming: (1) what does no-platforming actually mean; (2) is no-platforming an exercise in free speech restriction; (3) is a balanced debate really preferable to no-platforming; and finally (4) is it anti-feminist to no-platform a feminist? The complexities of the no-platform debate extend