Jeremy Stangroom

I remember it on campus from late 70s early 80s & associate it with the Anti-Nazi League / SWP. Usually in connection with keeping campus clear of National Front & other boot-boy types.

I see no-platforming groups who are actually violent (as opposed to ‘literally violent’) as quite different though.

John Carlisle (Tory MP) was often deplatformed in early-1980s, because of links to South Africa. Barclays Bank also ran into difficulties with student unions.

Barclays Bank apartheid SA action was a boycott, like divestment or sanctions absolutely not associated with 'no debate' or unwillingless to engage. Boycott often associated with turning up to shareholder meetings and AGMs to make the case, also letter writing, so all for debate!

I'm almost certain that I sat in Student Union meetings at Southampton University where students shut down Tory MPs who had links to Barclays Bank. Certainly John Carlisle was unable to speak. Dangers of reconstructed memory, of course.

I believe you, but I think boycott, which is primarily an economic tactic, feels quite different to 'no debate' which I genuinely can't think of any precedent for. Disputes over , for eg abortion rights and Palestine solidarity, have been incredibly bitter, but very much debated.

Yes my impression / recollection is that the debate about race and IQ was won fair and square the old fashioned way, with reason and evidence. With special mention to Stephen Jay Gould for 'The Mismeasure of Man' but clear Wilson and Gould were absolutely in academic debate.

Well, Wilson & Gould were in an academic debate, but Wilson told me he had protestors in his lectures for a time after the controversy arose. So I think it was a mixed picture, but agree not systematic as today.