Fictional Case Study Three

Managing and engaging with a high-profile speaker

Background

The Environmental Sustainability Society and the Debate Club at Anyplace University are planning an online debate about whether climate change is a real threat or a conspiracy.

The event will be open to Anyplace staff and students. It will also be recorded and (potentially) used as teaching material. There are also plans to upload the edited recording and make it available to the general public as a podcast.

The Debate Club has identified and contacted a speaker (who happens to be an MP with a national media profile) who is critical of climate change and ‘climate alarmism’.

The Environmental Sustainability Society has identified and contacted a speaker who works in an advocacy role for a well-known national charity and whose work seeks to raise the profile of, and encourage engagement with, the climate emergency.

First update

The club and society are jointly organising the event. A representative from each has filled out an External Speaker Request Form (i.e. there are two forms relating to the same event) and submitted it 22 days before the event is due to take place.

The form asks the event organiser to assess whether there is any risk in relation to the external speakers they would like to invite, or any additional support required. Neither representative has much experience of risk assessments, and both feel it is overly bureaucratic to produce one for an online event. They view this simply as a ‘hoop’ they have to jump through’ in order to hold an event.

Both of the identified speakers have busy diaries. The club and society have extended a formal invitation to both speakers, confirming the date, time and format. (One speaker will be abroad when the event is due to take place hence the convenience of delivering it online).

Second update

Whilst the Events Committee is assessing the request, the MP selected by the Debate Club speaks at a separate event hosted by the UK branch of the Heartland Institute. He also makes some highly controversial remarks about immigrants ‘off the record’ to a journalist at the Heartland event who records and broadcasts them. The resultant media coverage leads to a backlash amongst the UK public, particularly amongst the student population.

Some Anyplace staff and students form a group which starts an internal campaign on electronic media platforms (e.g. email, Twitter/X, Facebook, WhatsApp, Vimeo, Blogs and Online chat forums), arguing – sometimes with quite violent language - that such a ‘racist’ MP should not be speaking on an Anyplace platform and that the event should be postponed until another speaker is found or cancelled.

A group of IT technicians have been corresponding on a private WhatsApp group linked to their personal email accounts discussing how they could use their IT knowledge to sabotage and ‘pull the plug on’ the event if it goes ahead and the MP speaks (these employees use the WhatsApp group to contact each other out of hours about work-related issues).

Another technician in the WhatsApp group shares screengrabs of the exchange with their line manager as they think the correspondence is very suspicious and that ‘pulling the plug’ would be a free speech issue.

Third update

The Events Committee asks both clubs to review their risk assessment in light of recent public developments. They also ask both clubs to consider some mitigating measures to manage the increased risk.

The Environmental Sustainability Society is minded to postpone or cancel the event. They feel it is being hijacked by the immigration issue. Reviewing the risk assessment would be a ‘big job’ and it is all becoming ‘too difficult’ (in any case several people have some important study deadlines looming and need to concentrate on those). They have even drafted an email to send to their proposed speaker advising her of this (but have not sent it yet).

The Debate Club is keen for the event to go forward; they think the publicity the MP has received is generating much more interest in the event and attendance will be high.

Questions to explore

• What issues can you foresee with an internal event being recorded for subsequent public release or used as a teaching material?
• What potential challenges would there be with a club and a society co-arranging an event? Who should have ultimate responsibility?
• How could the representatives approach the risk assessment differently? How might they bring in additional risk management expertise?
• Per the events procedure, an event has to be approved before the speaker is confirmed; has this procedure been adhered to?
• What are your thoughts on the teaser campaign the Environmental Sustainability Society has embarked upon?
• What risks are associated with the online, internal protest? How could these be managed?
• How should the representatives be communicating with the potential external speakers? What should they be careful to do/not do?
• How should line management respond to the technicians’ exchange on WhatsApp?
• What mitigating measures could the representatives employ in order for the event to go ahead?
• How should the University manage the different views between the co-organisers of the events? Should the event go ahead, be postponed or cancelled?
• What reasonably practicable steps could the University to take to ensure freedom of speech within the
   law?

Commentary

Debates about climate change are becoming increasingly fractious and inviting a high-profile politician who has been indiscreet to a journalist is likely to be controversial. Subject to GDPR compliance, background checks could have been carried out on potential speakers before they are invited to understand whether they have caused controversy in the past or been refused permission to speak at other events, which would have made it easier for the University to decide whether additional mitigations or support would be required to allow the event to go ahead.

Translating this fictional case study to the OU, it is plausible that people within the OU community will not want a controversial speaker associated with them. Therefore the operational risks of delivering the event, as well as reputational risks, need to be explored properly and the relevant internal procedures followed. It is also important that event planning and management takes place in a timely manner and that deadlines are met.  The OU Events Policy makes clear that one person should be accountable for an event.

Both the Sustainability Society and the Debate Club have contacted potential speakers. It is unclear what expectations they have set with these potential speakers. Paragraph 3.10 of the OU Events Policy says that external speakers must not be confirmed or the event advertised or promoted prior to the event receiving approval from the Events Oversight Group. The inference here is that both speakers may not be clear that they have not been confirmed and their engagement is subject to additional internal approval; the organisers need to ensure that the speakers are aware the event will be subject to an internal process.

The event will be recorded; this means there is some control over how the event is chaired and moderated and the organisers will be able to remove people from the chat and/or the event itself more easily in an online meeting space. The event is open initially to the university community only but there are plans to disseminate it more widely and potentially make it a teaching material.  Reputationally, it would be advisable to proceed with caution here and to review/re-confirm these decisions after the recording has been reviewed; whether such a recording included the brand logo should also be carefully considered.

The event planners are aware of the policies they need to follow and seem to be working through the procedure but, given the potential risks associated with the event, the organisers need to take these seriously and consider risk management a complementary tool that can help in planning to ensure the event is successful.

Both the invited speakers are high profile figures and are likely to have busy diaries and will need to be confirmed in advance which is creating a tension with the timescales indicated. One of the speakers will be abroad in an unspecified country but they could be subject to other laws in relation to free speech. They could also be subject to surveillance of their online activity.

Recent media coverage of the MP will raise awareness and interest in their activity and speaking engagements from within and without the OU and there may there could be a greater level of public interest in the event than initially anticipated. The Events Oversight Group should consider this when they determine any mitigations or support require to allow the event to go ahead safely.

The internal campaign against the speaker ‘noisy platforming’ is a concern, as is the use of language and expression on social media. This is unlikely to be in line with the social media policy and should be reviewed depending on exactly what is said and in what context and if appropriate addressed.

The issue of IT technicians using external social media as a platform to communicate on work related matters is a concern and should be addressed. Confidential information about the OU systems could easily enter the public domain and enter the ‘wrong hands’ and/or data could be breached in this way (is there personally identifiable information in the WhatsApp messages)? It is likely that these messages may on occasion fall within scope of for example a data subject access request made to the OU.  The use of external social media platforms illustrates the blending of private and professional accounts for professional use and contravenes the social media policy. Clearly some employees are aware of this as one of the technicians has raised the issue directly with the line manager. Staff members refusing to discharge their professional responsibilities or sabotage events could also be a misconduct issue. This should be made clear to the technicians.

The event organisers are no longer aligned on whether to proceed or postpone/cancel the event and should discuss more widely with the relevant people/groups within the OU and/or the Events Oversight Group.  Some of the mitigations that could be considered include issuing tickets for the event or moderating any questions before they are asked.