The Lawrence Report, with its insistence that the police and all of British society is institutionally racist, is creating a climate where, instead of racism being openly expressed and then publicly rebutted and its obnoxious nature revealed, any form of criticism of someone of a different race or gender or sexual orientation will be treated as racist or sexist or homophobic. Free speech will be inhibited and John Stuart Mill's defence in On Liberty forgotten. This is already the situation on many American campuses, and is the direction of British universities too. While university administrators protest that political correctness is the creation of a neoconservative clique and an hysterical media, this book reveals literally hundreds of cases where liberty is denied. It is a passionate demand for the protection of free speech on campuses, where it should be most treasured.

When a student used the word "individualism", it was described as a racist code word. An academic stopped teaching a course on slavery when students accused him of racism after reading out a defence of slavery written in the nineteenth century. The University of Maryland ruled that "eating provocatively" could be sexual harassment. A university excluded a conservative group that refused to provide the racial, ethnic and sexual characteristics of its members. Wabash College forbade students from discussing the content of classes after a course was criticised in a student newspaper. A law school voted to limit free speech because of "the responsibility to promote freedom and social justice". A student accused of rape was denied the opportunity to hear his accuser or question her. A student was punished for laughing at a statement ordering him to read a book, see a film and write an essay to make him more "sensitive". One could go on and on with examples, as do the authors of this book.

They became involved in the issue of freedom on campus when a student at the University of Pennsylvania shouted a Yiddish insult, translated as "water buffalo", to a group of noisy female students outside his residence. He was accused of, and punished for, racism. Historian Professor Alan Kors became the student's faculty adviser and brought in the services of a civil liberties lawyer and long time friend, Harvey Silvergate. They became increasingly aware that this was not a isolated incident, and to believe that on many campuses there was "a tyranny that seeks to assert absolute power over the souls, the consciousness and the individuality of our students - in short, a tyranny over the essence of liberty".

One of the many merits of this attack on political correctness is that not only does it discuss numerous cases, to demonstrate that it is pervasive, but also identifies the principles of a free society that are threatened. Furthermore, most stories of censorship on campus are partisan: conservatives and leftists have their own favourite stories but appear willing to allow their opponents to be suppressed. Mr Kors and Silvergate even-huntedly demonstrate that free speech is frequently denied to all sides as administrators seek to prevent "trouble".

The authors concentrate on the assault on free speech through the introduction of speech codes, forbidding racist, sexist and homophobic remarks which can lead to a "hostile environment". They note that faculty can be restricted as well as students. Indeed the 1999 end of the faculty speech code at the University of Wisconsin was led by students against a strong lobby of academics and administrators. The authors carefully discuss how the first amendment protection of free speech has been interpreted by the courts, They locate the origins of the assault on free speech in the pernicious doctrines of the 1960s neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse, who claimed that free speech was "repressive tolerance" that privileged the powerful. The freedom of the powerful should be restricted to empower the powerless. This has found an echo in the promoters of censorship such as Catherine Mackinnon and Richard Delgado.

Speech codes are not the only threat however. Thought police seek to force individuals to accept and express beliefs they do not hold. For example, a Christian student was instructed to wear a pink triangle to express solidarity with gays. Students and faculty are ordered to attend "consciousness-raising classes", where the expression of politically correct opinions is necessary to pass. Kors and Silvergate correctly identify this as an assault on individual identity. Freedom of thought also means not to having to express views one does not hold. They also show how double standards are often applied. Anti-semitic remarks by black speakers are not condemned while criticisms of feminism are.

What was most surprising to me was the section on the denial of due process when students are prosecuted by the university. The authors identify the rules of natural justice they term "the rules of civilisation". They include: the opportunity to prepare a defence, the right of cross-examination, a public trial, and impartial judges. They then demonstrate how frequently they are denied to students by universities acting as Star Chambers.

They conclude by looking on what can be done to restore liberty on campus. They consider and reject judicial and political interference in universities as a threat to academic freedom,. They conclude (rightly in my opinion) that "sunlight is the best disinfectant".

How prevalent is the denial of free speech on British campuses? So far no one has conducted a detailed survey. My suspicion is that it is extensive. Most student unions deny a platform to racist and sexist speakers. Many universities have guidelines on how to avoid "offensive language" in seminars and essays. Many students at different universities have told me that they fear to express their true views about a subject (for example, that the British Empire was on balance beneficial for the colonies) because they will be penalised. If political correctness is pervasive, why has it not received the same degree of attention as in the USA? Partly, it is a lack of a First Amendment, which creates an awareness of rights largely absent here. Secondly, US students are more likely to perceive themselves as consumers who have certain rights, while British students still often see themselves as supplicants. Thirdly, Americans are (alas) litigious and frequently willing to resort to the courts of law. Fourthly, there is a network of supportive legal foundations willing to provide pro bono legal advice. I am unaware that Liberty has taken a serious interest in the denial of campus free speech. I do not think it has challenged the denial of platforms to "racist and sexist speakers".

Most of these factors are likely to change. Young people have a growing sense of their rights (if not always the corresponding recognition of the rights of others). The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law and thus adjudication by British courts will create more and cheaper opportunities to pursue cases through the courts. The British are rapidly becoming a more litigious society as newspapers report extensive claims of damages to those who have suffered discrimination. Is this to be welcomed? I think not. I prefer a society where disagreements can be openly expressed and reconciled privately within the context of a civil society. However, as discrimination and prejudice is increasingly governed by formal rules and laws, universities can expect a series of legal claims and counterclaims that will be expensive and damaging. Better to sort their own house in order first. I see little evidence that they will.

Nigel Ashford