A few weeks ago, that charmer and self-proclaimed national treasure Katie Hopkins spoke at the Union. The subject of the debate: this house believes in the right to offend. Many would claim that having Hopkins speak at a prestigious debating chamber like the Union somehow legitimises Hopkins, giving an individual who many understand to be a singularly odious racist the veneer of respectability and, worse, a platform.

However, denying her the right to speak plays right into her claim that her regime of truth is being systematically undermined, risking reinforcing the false narrative that far-right people like Hopkins, who claim to be interested in freedom of speech, have been sidelined by the elite for exposing the truth.

Adjacent to this is the fact that we live in an age where social media means everyone has a platform. This is why platform as a verb makes no sense, the Union is simply providing somewhere for Hopkins to spout her vitriol somewhere other than her newly reinstated X profile.

“Cambridge is a bubble and a diverse range of Union speakers is a way of perforating that bubble”

Finally, there is the fact that people at Cambridge are intelligent adults. If you disagree with Hopkins or any of the speakers at the Union, turn up and challenge them. It is an obvious point, but it feels necessary to reassert; exposing the flaws of views that you disagree with is integral to debate. Naturally, intellectually engaging speakers should both challenge the consensus of student politics and be prepared to be challenged themselves.

The alternative is a Union full of speakers who conform to what is undoubtedly the broadly left-wing political opinion of most Cambridge students (myself included). A broad spectrum is required, otherwise the Union will simply be more boring than it already is. Cambridge, like all universities, is a bubble and a diverse range of Union speakers is a way of perforating that bubble. I am not saying that no left-leaning figures should speak at the Union, but it needs more ideological diversity.

I could offer, for instance, Konstantin Kisin as someone far more equipped to argue for the importance of the ‘right to offend’. Kisin is a Russian immigrant to the UK, avowed Remainer, and critic of woke culture. He is also someone well-equipped at taking authoritarian governments to task on multiple fronts in a thoughtful manner with a complex and interesting position, a far better prospect than a has-been reality TV participant who makes creepy jokes about debaters fancying her.

“If now is the time of monsters, let’s get the monsters talking”

My problem with someone like Hopkins speaking at the Union is nothing to do with her grotesque views. Instead, it is the fact that, as a professional troll, she is an uninteresting and unimportant person chosen by the Union moguls as someone who will get bums on seats. “Tee-hee”, they think, “it might really offend some people if Katie Hopkins speaks at the debate on offending people.” The Union has an obligation to platform interesting speakers, not merely vapid individuals who sell tickets.

In contrast, ethics lecturer James Orr recently invited AI entrepreneur Peter Thiel to give a series of private lectures at St Catharine’s College on that most usual of dinner party topics, the Antichrist. These lectures were, by all accounts, weird, a combination of Christian millenarianism, the imperative of technological progress, and Thiel’s belief that Greta Thunberg is Satan’s personal representative on earth.

To me, Thiel is exactly the sort of person who should be invited to speak at the Union, and he did so in 2024. Thiel’s idea of a Luddite Antichrist leading a world government may not align with the typical student’s views, but it is an interesting instance of the intersection of Christian apocalyptic theories, right-wing politics, and AI development. Not to mention that, as chairman of Palantir and a close associate of President Trump, these are ideas that may be, for better or for worse, genuinely influential.

There is a broader point to be made about Hopkins and Thiel. Everyone is currently quoting that Gramsci line on the present being the time of monsters. Views once regarded as fringe are coming to the fore in global politics. Domestically, this was evident in Stephen Yaxley-Lennon’s Unite the Kingdom Rally in September. There is now a very real chance of Reform UK forming the next government. This means that it is imperative for the figures behind Reform (like Orr himself) face scrutiny. Relatively unknown people could hold immense influence in our next government, and the Union is one place for them to be questioned. The idea that Reform-linked figures should not speak at the Union is not only idiotic but dangerous.

In short, people who speak at the Union should have something meaningful to say about current times or, like Thiel, be involved in the reshaping of the modern world. AI and its ethicality is possibly the most obvious example of a topic for debate. If now is the time of monsters, let’s get the monsters talking.