“If you talk about values, why are you letting [redacted] come in to speak to the children?”

For obvious reasons, I am not going to outline who, why or when this relates to, nor give specific details that would reveal the identity of the speaker involved, but suffice it to say my first parental complaint, in my second term of headship, was complex.  

The parent went on to say they felt that the speaker coming in -  invited by a student-organised speaker club and approved by senior staff - held values contrary to our school.

All my early correspondence with parents had been about values and culture. I had focused on empathy, kindness and humility to share my passion for character education, and outlined our role as educators in shaping the integrity of young people. I had made this “a thing”.  

The parent concluded that they were not angry, just disappointed - a line that never fails with its impact, as teachers and parents know. So now, as my own values were called into question, I had a dilemma: whether we should let the speaker turn up, or rescind the invitation.

However, what followed was a fascinating intellectual debate and, most importantly, an opportunity for growth for our students, the SLT and myself as head. Ultimately, three clear things became apparent:  

1. Supporting students

The first key thing was, a student-run speaker club should be supported. They source the speakers, contact them, arrange the visits, publicise them internally and take great pride in the process.

The group that organises the speakers is long-running and offers a genuine opportunity for the students to show dynamism. To cancel was against their wishes and did not recognise their proactivity. 

What’s more, the issue lay with us for not doing the necessary due diligence before confirming the booking. As a result, our process for outside speakers has now been improved.

2. Complex evidence

Second, evidence is complex. On further investigation, while there were countless articles, there was another side to the story.

The notoriety of the individual made them a constant topic but they had never been found guilty of breaking any laws. Their opinions, while strong, had context; they denied the claims against them as bitter recriminations of the past and, objectively, they were successful and respected.

Indeed, in the same month, two other leading educational institutions had welcomed the individual to speak and share their insights.

The lessons learned - how to evaluate evidence; the research it encouraged for the students; the key message of how perspectives can be shaped by the media and our political biases; and how we can all be overly reactive - were so valuable for all involved.

Furthermore, while the school aims to be politically neutral, the act of “no-platforming” someone is a political statement in itself.

3. Shield or share?

The last, and most philosophical, lesson concerned the nature of what is in the best interests of young people.

Is it best to expose them to challenge and contrary views or to shield them from controversy? Should we trust them as being able to be evaluative and balanced, or do we see them as impressionable and easily influenced? 

For a long time, one of my favourite phrases, often misattributed to Voltaire, has been “I detest what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it”.

Freedom of speech is another, much bigger, conversation and, for me, should not include the right to offend without challenge. But at the same time, I have trust in young people that they are developing the integrity to hear unpleasant or controversial opinions and recognise them for their fallibility. 

And so I found myself trapped between my trust in young people; my role as the custodian of the institution’s reputation; my duty to protect the children; and my own personal politics (I, too, disagreed with the views of the individual, but had to temper this in any decision-making).

The outcome

After much consideration, consultation and advice, we worked with the students and resolved to welcome the speaker.

However, we held a call with them in advance to outline our concerns. We also controlled the questions, removed the Q and A and had a senior leader brief the students before and after.

As you might expect, events passed mostly without concern. In fact, the learning from the talk itself was minimal. But from the experience surrounding it, students and staff alike learned a great deal more about our values - both as a school and as individuals.

Tomas Duckling is headmaster of Dubai College