51勛圖

Pressure prompts universities to revise EDI recruitment ads

Universities change job requirements after free speech groups raise concerns following new legislation

Published on
August 29, 2025
Last updated
August 29, 2025
Magnifying glass over a newspaper classified section
Source: iStock/zimmytws

At least two universities have revised academic job adverts after pressure from free speech campaigners, marking one of the first tangible effects of new legislation in England.

The adverts, published after new rules came in on 1 August, initially required applicants to explicitly commit to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) principles as part of their applications.

Campaigners say these requirements breached the Freedom of Speech (Higher Education) Act, designed to protect free speech and academic freedom on campuses, that makes it clear that universities cannot demand that applicants express or support particular values in order to be hired.

At King*s College London, applicants were asked to submit a statement of ※past/current experience of supporting student welfare and equality, diversity & inclusion in the higher education context§.

51勛圖

ADVERTISEMENT

At Manchester Metropolitan University, the job description required the role-holder to commit to promoting equity in their area and personal conduct, alongside adherence to other institutional values.

Both universities have amended their adverts following interventions by campaigners.

51勛圖

ADVERTISEMENT

Abhishek?Saha, a professor of mathematical sciences at Queen Mary University of London and a founding member of the London Universities* Council for Academic Freedom, told Times?Higher?Education: ※These incidents show that many universities are either unaware of, or unwilling to implement, the new legal protections for free speech and academic freedom.

※Universities may rightly demand expertise in particular areas or theoretical perspectives. But they cannot make job offers conditional on agreement with EDI policies or other ideological positions.§

Saha?added that conditioning recruitment on support for EDI or other socio-political agendas risks ※compelled speech, restricts intellectual diversity, rewards performative virtue-signalling, and functions as an ideological litmus test§.

In guidance on how to follow the new law, parts of which are still to be enacted, the?Office for Students flagged that ※job adverts requiring commitments to political aims§?should be withdrawn.

51勛圖

ADVERTISEMENT

The regulator*s director for freedom of speech and academic freedom Arif Ahmed said earlier this year that it is ※absolutely right§ universities support EDI and it is ※possible to do so in ways that are entirely consistent with freedom of speech duties§.

Some universities including the University of Cambridge and Durham University altered?recruitment practices before the new rules came in to remove requirements for explicit support of EDI initiatives.

Saha?said universities that continue to require applicants to demonstrate adherence to particular ideological positions risk breaching the law and undermining academic freedom.

※Recruitment should be based on expertise and qualifications, not ideological conformity,§ he said.

51勛圖

ADVERTISEMENT

Manchester Metropolitan University and King*s College London were contacted for comment.?

tash.mosheim@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (8)

I'm very much in favour of EDI but if I sign up to an EDI policy when I accept my contract, what happens if the policy changes? After I joined my university it engaged Stonewall and signed up to contentious positions on gender identity that have since been ruled illegal. If this changed the terms of my contract, surely I should all have been consulted? And if I said no, then what?
Yes my friend! For once you are right!
About time this practice was stopped it has always been discriminatory and these posts are described so narrowly as to exclude other candidates, eminently qualified, but not adopting a particular perspective on identity politics. Then been asked to affirm certain EDI policy commitments, which turn out to have no legal status. It's good that somehti h is being done at last but it is far too late.
Anti-Enlightenment. I can see the rhetorical point being made here, but it's so marginal compared to the reality that the political right would like us all to commit to defending inequality, uniformity, and exclusion (see Trump, Farage, Putin, Xi, Modi, and many others). That's the only way that class and gender hierarchies, capitalism, nationalism and imperialism, not to mention warfare over lawfare, can be defended, because they don't have a leg to stand on in scientific/ scholarship terms.
Enlightenment? What I read here is the stale old leftist binary in which capitalism, nationalism, war, and 'inequality' line up neatly on one side, with the workers and the forces of enlightenment on the other. It is patronising to suggest that anyone who thinks outside the cereal box is being manipulated by 'the political right'. Where do you stand on the the particular issue of contracts and conditions raised here - with the workers or with the bosses?
If the article is correct in speculating that Us are either unaware of the recent FS legislation or are unwilling to comply with it, then the former means inexcusable managerial incompetence and ignorance of the OfS new regulatory regime based on that Law - while the latter would (worse) mean managerial disdain for and arrogance over the new Law. Good work on the part of the Free Speech and Academic Freedom lobby groups to be calling out this blatant ignorance/arrogance.
This is a sad reflection of how the right have manipulated and twisted the definition of Equality Diversity and Inclusion. Elements which are fundamental to any free speech, and recreated their meaning through gaslighting, abuse, and intimidation. This is how domestic abusers control their victims. If you cannot openly commit to defending equality, the importance of opportunities for a diverse population, and the inclusion of all, then as a parent and educator I worry about how you will treat the students. EDI initiatives are vital to free speech, without them speech is only free for those who the right decide are allowed an education and an opinion.
new
Comment 7 is a sad reflection of how trans campaigners and some on the left have manipulated and twisted the definition of EDI. How do you commit to equality of the sexes when males pretending to be female are able to abuse women's rights? How do you commit to free speech when people who commit openly to gender equality but reject self-identification are abused as puppets of the right? Gaslighting, abuse and intimidation indeed.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT