Fifth of academics do not feel free to teach controversial topics, survey shows
The Office for Students (OfS) gave examples of how universities and colleges should respond to scenarios surrounding freedom of speech in its guidance published on Thursday, including around protests, investigating staff and student complaints and ensuring speakers are not stopped from expressing their ideas or opinions.
It comes as the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, passed under the previous Conservative government in 2023, imposes a duty on institutions to secure and promote freedom of speech so long as it is lawful – a duty which comes into force in August.
In its guidance, the OfS said: 'Higher education providers and constituent institutions should have a high tolerance for all kinds of lawful speech.
'There should be a very strong presumption in favour of permitting lawful speech.'
The guidance stated:
– Academic staff should not be constrained or pressured in their teaching to endorse or reject particular value judgements.– Policies that regulate protests and demonstrations should not restrict these activities because they express or support a particular viewpoint so long as it is legal.– Institutions should not encourage students or staff to report others over lawful expression of a particular point of view.– The starting point of investigating any complaint relating to speech should be that lawful speech will not be punished because of a viewpoint that it expresses.– Providers must take steps to secure freedom of speech for visiting speakers. A speaker who has been invited to speak should not be stopped from doing so on the grounds of their ideas or opinions.
The OfS made clear that it 'will not protect Holocaust denial'.
The guidance was published alongside a survey, conducted on behalf of the watchdog by YouGov, which revealed a fifth of academics (21%) feel 'not very free' or 'not at all free' to discuss challenging or controversial topics in their teaching, with almost a quarter (24%) of those citing fear of physical attack.
The percentage of those who do not feel free to teach controversial topics rises to a third for academics from ethnic minority backgrounds while female academics are more likely than their male counterparts to say they do not feel free discussing such topics in their teaching, research, speaking engagements or on social media.
The survey, undertaken by 1,234 respondents between March 15 and April 19 last year, also showed that the most common topic academics feel restricted in discussing is sex and gender, followed by race and racism.
Twenty-eight per cent of participants said their university has become less tolerant of a range of viewpoints during their tenure.
Just under half (46%) think their university would prioritise freedom of speech over not causing offence, while two-thirds (67%) believe their university would prioritise staff and/or students feeling safe over freedom of speech.
Arif Ahmed, director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the OfS, said: 'The core mission of universities and colleges is the pursuit of knowledge. Free speech and academic freedom are fundamental to this purpose.
'Students need to know that they can freely share lawful views and opinions, and be prepared to hear a range of views as part of their studies. This includes things that they may find uncomfortable or shocking.
'By being exposed to a diversity of academic thought, students will develop their analytical and critical thinking skills.'
OfS chairman Professor Edward Peck, told MPs earlier this year that the watchdog's role in defending freedom of speech on campuses is 'absolutely crucial'.
'Universities, colleges and other providers should be places where ideas can be explored, examined, challenged, or disagreement can be facilitated. Where new viewpoints can be discovered,' he said.
'It's crucial – without that I don't think we'd have a university sector which would be the envy of the world as it is now. So that's my starting point.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
27 minutes ago
- Sky News
MP who introduced assisted dying bill 'confident' it will be voted through
Why you can trust Sky News The politician who introduced the assisted dying bill has said she is "confident" MPs will push it through to the next stage on Friday. Speaking at a news conference ahead of a Commons vote, Kim Leadbeater said: "I do feel confident we can get through tomorrow successfully." If new amendments are voted through on Friday, the bill to give some terminally ill adults the right to end their lives will get closer to becoming law as it will go through to the next stage in the House of Lords. Ms Leadbeater, who introduced the bill in October last year, said if MPs do not vote it through on Friday, "it could be another decade before this issue is brought back to parliament". But she said there was a "good majority" who voted for the bill at the last major vote, the second reading in November, when MPs voted it through by 330 to 275. "There might be some small movement in the middle, some people might change their mind or will change their mind the other way," she said. "But fundamentally, I do not anticipate that that majority would be heavily eroded." A new YouGov poll found 72% of Britons supported the bill as it stands, including 59% of those who say they support assisted dying in principle but oppose it in practice, and 67% were opposed to the principle of euthanasia but are willing to back it in practice. 1:12 Criticism by doctors The Labour MP was joined by bereaved and terminally ill people at Thursday's news conference as she made her case for a change in the law. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Recently, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Physicians have raised concerns about the bill. The Royal College of Psychiatrists said the bill, in its current form, did "not meet the needs of patients". It has also expressed concern over the shortage of qualified psychiatrists to take part in assisted dying panels. But Ms Leadbeater said doctors and psychiatrists have their individual views on assisted dying and royal colleges have, over the years, been neutral because of that. "My door is open, so if they have got concerns, they can come and speak to me about those concerns," she said. "But what I would say is they were very keen that there was psychiatric involvement in the process, and that's why I included it. And I do think that's important." On Friday, MPs will vote on a number of amendments proposed by Ms Leadbeater after months of discussions with the assisted dying committee, made up of MPs both for and against the bill. At the start of the session they will vote on a person not being eligible for assisted dying if their wish to end their life was substantially motivated by factors such as not wanting to be a burden, a mental disorder, a disability, financial considerations, a lack of access to care, or suicidal ideation. The Speaker has indicated he will also choose these amendments for MPs to vote on: • Supported by Ms Leadbeater - Requiring the government to publish an assessment of palliative and end-of-life care within a year of the bill passing • Supported by Ms Leadbeater - A person cannot be considered terminally ill solely because they voluntarily stopped eating or drinking • Not supported by Ms Leadbeater - Disapply the presumption a person has capacity unless the opposite is established • Not supported by Ms Leadbeater - Prevent section 1 of the NHS Act 2006, which sets out the NHS' purpose, from being amended by regulations.
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Government to ban depictions of choking and suffocation in adult film content
The UK government will ban choking in porn, as Policing Minister Dame Diana Johnson says 'there is absolutely no place for violent, misogynistic and harmful content online' Policing Minister Dame Diana Johnson has made a firm commitment to outlaw pornography that depicts acts of strangulation and suffocation. The ban will now be implemented through an amendment to the Government's Crime and Policing Bill, which will be introduced by peers after the comprehensive draft legislation successfully passed through the Commons on June 18. In a resolute statement, Dame Diana asserted that: "there is absolutely no place for violent, misogynistic and harmful content online", following calls from multiple MPs to broaden the scope of what constitutes "extreme pornographic images". Conservative former minister Dame Caroline Dinenage had attempted to modify the Bill in the Commons by proposing a new clause, but her efforts were rejected by 310 votes to 114, a majority of 196. Dame Caroline's proposed clause aimed to prohibit images and videos showcasing "an act which affects a person's ability to breathe and constitutes battery of that person". 'Strangling your partner in bed is not safe' During the debate, Dame Caroline urged her fellow MPs to take action, stating: "We need to send a signal that strangling your partner in bed is not safe. It can be a precursor to coercive, abusive behaviour." As chairwoman of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Dame Caroline further highlighted the prevalence of online pornography in the UK, revealing that over 10 million adults access it every month, with the majority being men. While acknowledging individual freedoms, Dame Caroline also pointed to disturbing research findings that show one in 10 children have been exposed to online pornography by the age of nine. "Unfortunately, it is the guide that many young people use to learn about sex, and that is why I'm extremely worried that non-fatal strangulation has been found to be rife on porn sites." Home Affairs Committee chairwoman Dame Karen Bradley, who previously served as culture secretary for the Conservatives, lent her support to the ban, telling the Commons: "This is not impacting on what people may wish to do in their private lives, but it does mean that those images would not then be available to be seen in pornographic films." Help us improve our content by completing the survey below. We'd love to hear from you! She continued, underscoring child protection concerns: "And it means that there's protection for children who may be looking at this pornography. We don't want them to look at it, but we're realists, we recognise this happens, and it would mean that this doesn't normalise something which is a really dangerous act and really should not be being promoted in any way." The push for such a prohibition included Labour MP for Lowestoft Jess Asato, who had proposed a similar ban targeting depictions of "an act of choking, suffocating or strangling another person", though it wasn't brought to a vote. 'There is no place for violent, misogynistic content online' In response, Dame Diana expressed her views firmly: "There is absolutely no place for violent, misogynistic and harmful content online that perpetuates violent views against women and girls and has the effect of doing them great harm." Her stance reflected deep concern over patterns of consumption leading to violent behaviours: "We know that the increasing prevalence of this kind of content outlined in this amendment is fuelling violent sexual encounters." Dame Diana acknowledged some technical shortcomings yet supported the intent behind the amendments: "While there are issues with the drafting for both these new clauses, the Government supports their underlying aim." The commitment to tackle explicit content took a vital step forward as it was announced: "Accordingly, I am pleased to say that we will bring forward amendments in the Lords to criminalise pornography depicting strangulation and suffocation." Should the Bill succeed, it will establish novel respect orders, part of the Government's strategy to clamp down on antisocial behaviour and implement a new obligation for reporting suspected child sex offences to police and councils in England. Dame Diana also highlighted forthcoming plans, revealing: "The new violence against women and girls strategy will set out improvements in the way that we are going to tackle sexual harassment, and that's due to be published before the summer recess." The Bill in question successfully passed through the Commons with a significant majority of 217 votes, tallying at 312 to 95, and is now set for more detailed examination in the House of Lords.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Students should hear ‘uncomfortable or shocking' views at university
University students should be prepared to hear views that may be 'uncomfortable or shocking' during their studies, as England 's higher education watchdog issued guidance on how institutions can protect freedom of speech. New figures from The Office for Students (OfS) reveal that one in five academics across the political spectrum feel unable to teach controversial topics. The OfS guidance, published on Thursday, outlines various scenarios and appropriate institutional responses, including managing protests, investigating staff and student complaints, and ensuring speakers are not prevented from sharing their ideas or opinions. This development follows the passage of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act in 2023, enacted under the previous Conservative government. The legislation imposes a statutory duty on higher education institutions to secure and promote lawful freedom of speech, a requirement set to come into force this August. Reacting to the survey, Arif Ahmed, director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the OfS, said: 'The core mission of universities and colleges is the pursuit of knowledge. Free speech and academic freedom are fundamental to this purpose. 'Students need to know that they can freely share lawful views and opinions, and be prepared to hear a range of views as part of their studies. This includes things that they may find uncomfortable or shocking. 'By being exposed to a diversity of academic thought, students will develop their analytical and critical thinking skills.' In its guidance, the OfS said: 'Higher education providers and constituent institutions should have a high tolerance for all kinds of lawful speech. 'There should be a very strong presumption in favour of permitting lawful speech.' The guidance stated: Academic staff should not be constrained or pressured in their teaching to endorse or reject particular value judgements. Policies that regulate protests and demonstrations should not restrict these activities because they express or support a particular viewpoint so long as it is legal. Institutions should not encourage students or staff to report others over lawful expression of a particular point of view. The starting point of investigating any complaint relating to speech should be that lawful speech will not be punished because of a viewpoint that it expresses. Providers must take steps to secure freedom of speech for visiting speakers. A speaker who has been invited to speak should not be stopped from doing so on the grounds of their ideas or opinions. The OfS made clear that it 'will not protect Holocaust denial'. The guidance was published alongside a survey, conducted on behalf of the watchdog by YouGov, which revealed a fifth of academics (21 per cent) feel 'not very free' or 'not at all free' to discuss challenging or controversial topics in their teaching, with almost a quarter (24 per cent) of those citing fear of physical attack. The percentage of those who do not feel free to teach controversial topics rises to a third for academics from ethnic minority backgrounds while female academics are more likely than their male counterparts to say they do not feel free discussing such topics in their teaching, research, speaking engagements or on social media. The survey, undertaken by 1,234 respondents between March 15 and April 19 last year, also showed that the most common topic academics feel restricted in discussing is sex and gender, followed by race and racism. Twenty-eight per cent of participants said their university has become less tolerant of a range of viewpoints during their tenure. Just under half (46 per cent) think their university would prioritise freedom of speech over not causing offence, while two-thirds (67 per cent) believe their university would prioritise staff and/or students feeling safe over freedom of speech. OfS chairman Professor Edward Peck, told MPs earlier this year that the watchdog's role in defending freedom of speech on campuses is 'absolutely crucial'. ' Universities, colleges and other providers should be places where ideas can be explored, examined, challenged, or disagreement can be facilitated. Where new viewpoints can be discovered,' he said. 'It's crucial – without that I don't think we'd have a university sector which would be the envy of the world as it is now. So that's my starting point.'
