By Iman Shaikh
A recent statement was released by the LSE Students’ Union Sabbatical Officers, condemning what they described as “fascist and divisive politics” on campus. This followed the successive appearances of stalls from organisations such as Turning Point UK and Stop the Hate UK in the CBG Plaza. The purported aims of these stalls were to promote open debate and act as an “opportunity for ‘dialogue’”. At the LSESU Town Hall in December, several students flagged that the presence of these organisations on campus has left them feeling “unsafe, uncomfortable, and upset.”
The SU’s concern extends beyond just the presence of these organisations; they also take issue with how they deliver their views and approach students. Using “multiple cameras”, interactions with students are often filmed and circulated online, leading to some students being allegedly doxxed or otherwise exposed, and it is this targeted harassment that sits at the centre of the Statement. These claims are based on reports from students, cited by the Sabbs.
The Statement notes that much of the LSE campus is a public thoroughfare, meaning external organisations are able to set up stalls without prior approval, provided they act within the law. It adds that the SU will continue to engage with School Senior Management on the issue, whilst acknowledging that the university maintains a legal obligation to uphold freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Student reactions appear mixed. Some describe the presence of these stalls as an inconvenience to be ignored, while others express concern about the handling of the issue by the School:
BSc Management, 3rd Year:
“I think it’s fine. Honestly, we need to get more used to having arguments with people we disagree with. I personally don’t agree with the views being represented, but out of principle I wouldn’t go out of my way to ban them totally. It might be an uncomfortable conversation, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing in my opinion. We should be able to deal with it.”
MSc Economic History
“We have a public campus, so I guess we’re limited with what we can actually do.”
MSc, Government Department
“It’s abhorrent to have such organisations on campus. Not a matter of which side or political leaning. Just their attitude of being condescending and aggressive, and the way they act with students, it’s not good.”
MSc, Government Department
“The whole thing is ragebait. We shouldn’t engage with them.”
MSc, International Development
“It honestly has made me feel really uncomfortable, not just because I’m a visible minority but because I come here, to a different country, to learn, and this environment should be one where that comfort and safety is prioritised above everything else.”
LLB, 3rd Year:
“There’s not really much we can do. It’s easy to say the uni should ban them, but then it opens up a can of worms, because if we ban them, who else do we ban? Like, when is something inflammatory or offensive enough — it’s just too subjective. So in theory yeah, we can ban them from coming back on campus, but then where do you draw the line?”
MSc, International Relations
“Everyone needs to grow up a bit, if you don’t like it just don’t talk to them.”
MSc, History
“It’s tricky because I don’t like the fact that they’re there, but I don’t think there’s much that can actually be done, it’s just up to the individual how they react to it because I honestly don’t think LSE will or can do much. But it’s good the SU is at least aware of the fact some people have had quite a negative experience with the organisations.”
MSc Political Science
“The doxxing is really messed up. I don’t know how they’re getting away with that, and the uni doesn’t seem to care. Same uni that forcefully evicted their students, so what can you expect really.”
The Statement emphasises that “freedom of speech does not mean you have to engage”, encouraging students to disengage from interactions they may find uncomfortable, suggesting that engagement with these groups may contribute further to the production of inflammatory online content. The situation reflects broader questions around how universities balance open expression with student welfare — particularly in the context of increasingly visible and digital forms of political activism.
The Statement cites the use of “provocative statements that have negative implications for minorised groups” such as “bad faith arguments against immigration and abortion”. It is likely that the use of the term “fascist” by the Sabbs may be contested by critics of such a characterisation.
Turning Point UK, Let’s Do Something on Campus, and Stop the Hate UK were contacted for comment but did not respond.
When contacted by The Beaver, an LSE spokesperson said:
“Freedom of academic enquiry, thought, and speech underpins everything we do at LSE. Our Code of Practice on Free Speech is designed to protect and promote lawful freedom of expression on campus. As an institution, LSE does not take a formal position on political issues. Instead, it endeavours to provide a platform to facilitate discussion and critical debate, within the law, where the views of all parties are treated with respect. This includes the expression of views that are unpopular, controversial, provocative, or cause upset, but are not unlawful.”
“This is enshrined in UK law by the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, that LSE has an obligation to adhere to via our Code of Practice.”
