51³Ô¹Ï

Campus occupations can be broken up in some circumstances, but academics deemed ¡°transphobic¡± cannot be stopped from lecturing on sex and gender, according to new freedom of speech guidance for English universities.?

A document from the Office for Students (OfS) has set out how universities should respond to a range of scenarios including pro-Gaza encampments, anti-Israel protests and the targeting of gender-critical academics.

In the detailed guidance to help universities navigate their duties under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which will come into effect in August, a 67-page document published on 19 June emphasises the ¡°very high bar¡± needed to restrict lawful speech on English campuses, outlining how institutions must take steps to support constructive dialogue on contentious subjects.

The free speech laws were due to come into effect in August last year but were paused by education secretary Bridget Phillipson last summer amid concerns the guidance could amount to a ¡°hate speech charter¡±. However, it was announced in January that the Tory-era legislation would go ahead with amendments following considerable criticism over the delay.

Stressing the importance of free speech, the new OfS guidance states that institutions should not punish students or staff for lawful expression of a viewpoint, including criticising their institution. Nor should job applicants or academics seeking promotion be required to show commitment to a certain political or ideological viewpoint, the guidance adds.

Further information is also provided on the need for institutions to have a free speech code of practice, which should be brought to the attention of students ¡°at least once a year¡±. The code should be ¡°easily accessible by students, members of staff, visiting speakers and those considering applying to be students¡± and available online ¡°without any form of password or security check¡±.

The OfS also describes a number of potential free speech flashpoints that might be faced by UK universities ¨C many of which have strong echoes of recent real-life controversies ¨C and offers guidance on how institutions might best respond.

One suggested case study involves a professor who attempts to run a seminar series and a conference to explore the issues of sex and gender, but is required to cancel the series following protests about ¡°transphobia¡± from staff and students. If the department had instructed the academic not to speak about her research or the accusation that she is a transphobe, the university ¡°may have directly discriminated¡± against the professor and ¡°breached its ¡®secure¡¯ duty¡± on free speech, the OfS explains.

That study is likely to draw some parallels with a number of high-profile cases involving gender-critical academics who have faced abuse, harassment and no platforming. In March, the University of Sussex was fined ?585,000 by the OfS for failing to uphold freedom of speech in the case of Kathleen Stock. Sussex¡¯s?policy statement on trans and non-binary equality, including a requirement to ¡°positively represent trans people¡±, could prevent staff and students from voicing opposing views, the OfS ruled.

The guidance also tackles the issue of pro-Gaza encampments on campus, stating that an occupation of a lawn used for a university graduation ceremony could be broken up as this action would ¡°not meaningfully restrict the protesters¡¯ opportunity to express their viewpoints¡± on a nearby site.?

On a similar theme, the guidance also recommends that universities should ¡°take appropriate steps to address any chilling effect¡± on ¡°pro-Israeli or Jewish religious expression¡± caused by ¡°frequent, vociferous and intrusive anti-Israel protests across campus¡±.

¡°Regulation of the time, place and manner of such protests may be a reasonably practicable step to take to secure the speech of students,¡± it says, noting how ¡°students may self-censor support for Israel, and Jewish students might be chilled from expressing their religious beliefs on campus¡± without institutional intervention.

Institutions should also take steps to ensure protesters do not exercise a ¡°heckler¡¯s veto¡± by delivering speech in a loud volume or over an excessive amount of time that prevents others from speaking, the guidance adds.

Arif Ahmed, director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the?OfS, said the guidance provides ¡°institutions with a range of examples on how to respond ¨C and how not to respond ¨C in different scenarios¡±.

¡°It¡¯s essential that universities keep in mind that there is a very high bar for restricting lawful speech,¡± explained Ahmed, noting that while ¡°ultimately each case will need to be considered on its particular circumstances¡­in all cases universities must have particular regard for the importance of freedom of speech.¡±

The guidance did not prohibit universities from regulating speech ¡°where appropriate¡±, continued Ahmed.

¡°No university needs to allow shouting during an exam, or for a maths lecturer to devote their lectures to their own political opinions rather than the subject at hand. Equally, they can and should take steps to address harassing speech on campus,¡± he said, adding that ¡°antisemitic harassment, for example, should not be tolerated on any campus and we fully expect universities to take robust steps to tackle it.¡±

Alongside the guidance, the OfS has also published the results of a poll of academics on freedom of speech and academic freedom. It was conducted in 2024, prior to the pausing of free speech laws following Labour¡¯s general election victory.

The polling found that one in five academics on both the political left and right do not feel free to teach controversial topics, rising to one in three afraid to discuss them in external speaking engagements.?Sex and gender was the top topic academics feel restricted discussing.

Describing the results as ¡°deeply disturbing¡±, Ahmed commented that they show ¡°a sizeable minority of academics from across the political spectrum do not feel free to teach, research or discuss controversial topics.¡±

¡°This cannot stand, and should concern vice-chancellors up and down the country. Universities should now take steps to ensure that they are robust and unwavering in their support for academic freedom,¡± he said.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com