“We are the students, and we will not stop until we are heard”, York Student Action Network (YSAN) triumphantly declared on Instagram after their protest against Reform Society’s event speaker, Jack Anderton, drew over 400 students, dwarfing the meagre 30 attendees who came to hear Anderton speak.
The protest was a bold stand against the far-right’s presence on campus. Speakers emphasised solidarity, community and protecting the marginalised groups who are targeted by extremist scapegoating. It wasn’t just a protest; it was a collective refusal to allow hate on campus.
Anderton’s views
Anderton called the protestors “deeply troubled people”. Although he has directly refuted YSAN labelling him a “fascist” – claiming the “radical left of York are lying and smearing me” – it’s undeniable that his blog spouts dangerous far-right rhetoric which flirts with imperialism and authoritarianism.
He has targeted British students at Palestine demonstrations, describing them as “indoctrinated” and blaming rising campus activism on the “importation of foreign students” who “bring their grievances” to the UK. This rhetoric echoes classic far-right narratives portraying international students as threats. Perhaps British citizens empathising with and fighting against global horrors is a foreign concept to him.
His ‘Britain’ is a hollow, nostalgic fantasy: a whitewashed empire with an all-powerful state crushing dissent. On his blog, he lusts after the possibility of regaining former colonies, fantasises about immigration dropping to zero and hails an omnipotent state as the ultimate solution – advocating El Salvador-style mass imprisonment. Frankly, it smacks of fragility. It reads less like a political vision and more like a make-believe empire crafted by a man flustered by the fact that modern Britain is diverse, dynamic, and nothing like the world he imagines.
A Contradiction of Values
Anderton’s visit didn’t just spark debate. It undermined the safety and well-being of students targeted by his rhetoric. For many students, campus isn’t just a place for lectures, it’s their home, and the presence of someone with such unnerving views is a direct attack on their welfare. For many in our community, the society’s decision to bring Anderton to the University – something they did not do with Richard Tice’s visit last year – carries a symbolic weight that can be perceived as intimidating. When someone whose politics explicitly target minority groups is given a microphone on campus, the impression is given that the well-being of members of these groups that live here is secondary.
York SU selected Refugee Action to be their charity partner in Semester 1, a highly significant move in the wake of the “Operation Raise the Flags” campaign that had made its way to the areas surrounding campus. But the impact of this is wholly compromised by the Union allowing this event. The charity’s aim is to “challenge myths and misconceptions about refugees and asylum seekers,” ironically the exact misconceptions that Anderton consistently exacerbates through his claim that “immigration is stealing the future of the British youth.”
It is clear the SU has put great effort into making students at the University feel safe in a period of deep uncertainty, but is this really the point where their hands are tied? We feel it’s reasonable to question how safe sanctuary seekers at York feel in the presence of a society aligned with political figures like Farage and Anderton, whose messaging is, in our opinion, often experienced as intimidating and hostile to the diversity upon which Britain thrives.
Reform Society’s Track Record: A Pattern of Harm
Reform Society’s invitation to Anderton is only the latest incident in a growing chain of scandals that stretches back to the society’s inception. Their vile transphobic views reared their head following the Supreme Court’s ruling that the legal definition of a woman was based on biological sex. Reform Society intentionally exploited a moment when trans students were at their most vulnerable – feeling alienated, confused, and scared – to declare a “victory for common sense and a devastating blow to the ludicrous falsehood that a man can become a woman (or vice versa).”
The vitriol of their statement can not be sugarcoated. They continued: “radical gender ideology continues to poison our institutions and indoctrinate our children. We must keep up the fight.” Reform Society publicly spouted transphobic rhetoric and declared they will continue to “fight” against the existence of trans people – not as a call to physical violence, but as an aggressive rallying cry for the far-right’s campaign that drives hostility, fuels stigma, and further endangers trans people
York SU have said that, after receiving multiple complaints, they ran a full investigation and “took appropriate disciplinary action.” But clearly, Reform’s behaviour won’t change – the Party is built on divisive populism that scapegoats ethnic minorities and the LGBT+ community.
This Isn’t About Free Speech. It’s About Safety.
The far-right has mastered the art of using “free speech” as a shield in order to spit their hate – always ensuring ample protection before beginning their intimidation campaigns. They demand unlimited freedom to attack minorities, then cry oppression when challenged.
Of course, universities should host varied political views. But York SU’s duty to protect campus’ safe, welcoming culture must outweigh fear of being accused of censorship.
In the planning stages, Reform Society disclosed its intention to discuss their party, young people, and “the broader political world.” Recognising that these topics are difficult, the University and York SU’s event safety group put a control officer at the event to “ensure it didn’t cross a line from free speech to hate speech.”
Although this kind of monitoring is standard for flagged events, that doesn’t make the implications any less stark. We believe it indicates how close Reform UK’s rhetoric veers towards hate speech. If an event requires active monitoring to prevent it from crossing into bigotry, we argue the issue is not the supervision – it is the decision to platform views that make such mitigation necessary in the first place.
Anderton is a political influencer – his brand is inseparable from the exclusionary far-right narratives he amplifies. Hoping his ideological content can be neatly bracketed off is, in our opinion, like inviting Andrew Tate to talk about “current affairs” and hoping no misogyny spills out. Accommodating Anderton legitimises his persona and the foul politics that made him relevant in the first place.
What comes next?
The overwhelming student turnout against Anderton proves that York’s community is stronger than the division Reform’s ideology attempts to sow in society. But students should not have to fight this battle alone.
A society is a powerful platform – amplifying voices and shaping campus discourse – York SU must ensure that this power isn’t used to spread toxicity online or make campus unsafe for minorities. At a minimum, students who are known to hold prejudiced views should not be able to form or lead any society. However, York SU says that provided a society is not breaking the law, they can not stop students organising a society. And this applies even if the members hold offensive views (which in our opinion is just plain stupid).
We hope the individuals who were responsible for the troubling post were removed from the society’s leadership – and if that leaves no one to run ReformSoc, that speaks for itself.
Political diversity enriches campus and creates important conversations, however, prejudice and scapegoating is baked into the core of the Reform Party. It’s hard to imagine students ever feeling safe or welcome while the Reform Society continues to operate, or the SU being able to meaningfully shift their views and the SU will never be able to change their views. It will be an endless balancing act – waiting for the next scandal to drop.
Reform Society are a fringe group desperate for legitimacy they could not earn without SU approval. Students have shown where they stand – now, York SU must decide whether they stand with them.