51³Ô¹Ï

It is heartening that, for once, a in UK higher education appears to have actually made a tangible difference to the proposals in question.

The Office for Students¡¯ on how universities should interpret England¡¯s is considerably more robust and extensive than the ?published in March 2024.

The act itself was , having been paused by the incoming Labour government last July, shortly before it was scheduled to come into force. During the intervening period, various academic freedom organisations lobbied for the Act¡¯s implementation and participated extensively in the consultation on the draft guidance. Those organisations include two with which both of us are active: the (LUCAF) and .

A debate over one aspect of the played out in this magazine last year, when we both responded to a piece by academic Naomi Waltham-Smith and lawyer James Murray. At the heart of the debate was Article 10(2) of the , which concedes that the exercise of freedom, ¡°since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society¡± for various reasons.

Waltham-Smith and Murray argued that this was not adequately accounted for in the draft, leading to over-protection of lawful speech. In our reply, we contended that the Article sets a floor rather than a ceiling for our free speech rights.

In their formal , Waltham-Smith and Murray, with Julius Grower, extended their argument, claiming that if an institution may ¡°permissibly interfere with the speech [under] Article 10(2)¡± then it may prohibit lawful speech without needing to consult the Act. LUCAF¡¯s directly challenged this view, arguing that universities may prohibit lawful speech under Article 10(2) only when it is not reasonably practicable to secure that speech. Otherwise a ¡°huge and dangerous loophole¡± would open in the legislation ¨C one that universities could exploit, especially in response to activist pressure, to deny protection precisely to those most in need of the law¡¯s safeguards.

The OfS has decisively aligned with LUCAF¡¯s interpretation. It affirms that if speech is lawful under English law, universities must take all reasonably practicable steps to secure it.

In addition to clarifying key legal principles, the final version of the guidance significantly strengthens and expands the protections for freedom of speech and academic freedom set out in the draft, making abundantly clear that staff and students must not face discipline for expressing lawful views.

One major cause of the current malaise is the rise of politicised appointments within universities, where job descriptions, titles and shortlisting criteria serve as ideological filters ¨C often at the expense of scholarly merit. Encouragingly, the guidance affirms that no job applicant or staff member should be required to affirm a particular viewpoint, although subject competence may rightly be required. It also makes clear that universities must remove any requirement to demonstrate commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusion in promotion processes, and must not contractually oblige staff to subscribe to the imperatives of ¡°social justice.¡±

Full records should be kept to ensure no candidate is disadvantaged on account of their viewpoint, and all panel members should receive training on freedom of speech and academic freedom.

Indeed, the range of activities for which the guidance requires such training is extensive and will include most professional as well as academic staff. This will genuinely constitute a culture shift ¨C and might generate some resentment and pushback. Beyond this, institutions are required to create a free speech code of practice and alert students to this at least once a year.

The examples given in the guidance are pertinent: a foreign government imposing ideological tests; academics accusing Shakespeare of racism or expressing pro-life views in an external forum; or sharing other lawful opinions on a blog. Equally important is the example of the mathematics lecturer who neglects core material and teaches incoherently instead; this is not protected because if it were, this would undermine the core teaching function of a university.

The guidance also makes unequivocally clear that the OfS will not protect Holocaust denial ¨C a claim often made by critics. And it has incorporated points raised in consultations about the importance of institutional neutrality and avoiding bringing pressure to bear on teachers to toe a certain line, including in the context of professional accreditation, which could require some renegotiating of the latter.

¡°Reputational¡± concerns for the institution are deemed irrelevant to whether speech should be protected, and strong examples are given of the right of academics to criticise religions regardless of student complaints or institutional mission statements on ¡°inter-faith understanding¡± ¨C although how this could weather remains to be seen. More widely, academics should be able to hold whichever views they like on various human groups so long as they do not discriminate against them.

This guidance has the potential to temper dogmatic implementation of the ¡°decolonise the curriculum¡± movement and the growing influence of anti-rational, post-truth ideologies such as Critical Social Justice and Critical Race Theory. It could end UK academia¡¯s decade of adopting contested positions on transgender issues promulgated by bodies such as Athena SWAN and Stonewall. In doing so, it could play a crucial role in restoring public trust in our academic institutions.

The that it is ¡°just more nonsense playing into the so-called culture wars¡± is just a defensive response to the real culture wars in which they and others have been major players.

is professor of music, culture and society at City St George¡¯s, University of London. is professor of mathematics at Queen Mary, University of London. Both are founder members of the London Universities¡¯ Council for Academic Freedom and co-convenors of branches of Academics for Academic Freedom. A longer version of this article, with references to relevant paragraphs in the guidance, .??