Be ready to be shocked and offended at university, students told
Students should be ready to be shocked and offended at university, according to the man in charge of ensuring free speech on campuses.Arif Ahmed, from the Office for Students (OfS), which regulates universities, told the BBC that exposure to views which students might find offensive was "part of the process of education".It comes as the OfS published guidance for universities in England on how a new law, designed to protect free speech, will work when it comes into force from August.Universities had requested clarity from the OfS on how to best uphold freedom of speech, after the University of Sussex was fined £585,000 for failing to do so in March.
The university was issued with the fine earlier this year under existing powers, after the OfS said its policy on trans and non-binary equality had a "chilling effect" on freedom of speech.Kathleen Stock had previously resigned from her post as philosophy professor at the university, following protests by students against her gender-critical views.The university has begun a legal challenge against the fine, arguing that the investigation was flawed. Universities UK, which represents 141 institutions, said at the time of the fine that it would write to the OfS to clarify what would represent a breach of freedom of speech rules.They now say they are "pleased" the OfS has taken on feedback, and would "make sure universities are appropriately supported to comply" with the new rules.From this summer, the new law will place a stronger responsibility on universities in England to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom.The OfS can sanction universities, with the potential for fines to run into millions of pounds, if they are found to have failed to do so.Almost every aspect of university life - from protests to debates, training and teaching - is covered by the new guidelines on how the law will be applied.For returning students, or those starting university this year, there may be not be a noticeable immediate change, but Dr Ahmed says the law is about the freedom for anything to be discussed or taught.Speaking directly to students, the director for free speech said: "You should expect to face views you might find shocking or offensive, and you should be aware that's part of the process of education."He added that students should be able to express any view, no matter how offensive it is to others, as long as it is not outside what is generally allowed by law, such as harassment or unlawful discrimination.
'Be respectful of everyone's opinions'
Paris and Marie-Louise, who both study mental health nursing at the University of Salford, said they felt that being respectful of others' opinions is key. Paris said she thought it was important to be able to "express your emotions and feelings without being disrespectful", and allow others to do so too."I think it's important to be able to allow other people to express themselves, because at the end of the day everyone's gone through different situations that may lead to them having different opinions," she said.Similarly, Marie-Louise said freedom of speech "doesn't mean you have to be nasty" or "act out of manner", but rather "just stay true to yourself".In the OfS guidelines, 54 detailed scenarios are used to explore how the new law might be interpreted, with some likely to provoke debate and even controversy.One looks at "simulated military checkpoints" as part of student protests about Palestine - something that has happened in the United States, but not on campuses in the UK.The right for peaceful student protests is balanced with universities being able to limit the time and place they happen, in order to ensure no students are intimidated or prevented from attending lectures.The guidelines also make it clear that any agreements with foreign states that enable censorship on campus must be changed or scrapped.
'Offensive, shocking, controversial or disturbing'
But not everyone accepts there are serious issues around freedom of expression at universities.When challenged on the scale of the issue, Dr Ahmed pointed to polling carried out for the OfS, which he said suggests a fifth of academics do not feel free to discuss controversial topics in their teaching.The issues most frequently highlighted by those expressing concern were race and racism, as well as sex and gender, with women more likely to feel unable to speak out. The guidelines also make clear that the OfS expects universities to support and protect academics whose views might provoke protest from students, and not to delay speaking up in their defence.Dr Ahmed told the BBC universities could not sack a lecturer "simply because that person expresses views students find offensive, shocking, controversial or disturbing - and that's essential to academic freedom."What is less clear is what happens when an academic leaves a job because they feel the situation is untenable.Prof Jo Phoenix won a case for constructive dismissal with the Open University, and a tribunal found she had faced harassment for her gender-critical views.Another employment tribunal, due to take place next year, will look at an allegation by a different academic that he was constructively dismissed after students boycotted his teaching over his opinion that racial diversity programmes had gone too far.In the meantime, the law will come into effect, with a complaints system to follow. Students will be able to complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator if they feel free speech or academic freedom is not upheld, while academics or visiting speakers will go direct to the OfS. Universities have expressed unease about the new system, pointing out they already have a legal obligation to uphold free speech. A Universities UK spokesperson said: "We strongly agree that universities must be places where free speech is protected and promoted."It added that issues were complex, and said it was pleased the regulator had taken on board feedback on its previous draft guidelines.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
25 minutes ago
- Sky News
UK attorney general concerns over Iran-Israel war
The UK government's top legal adviser has raised questions over whether Israel's actions in Iran are lawful, according to a source familiar with discussions inside the government. The source suggested to Sky News that Attorney General Richard Hermer's thinking, which has not been published, complicates the UK's potential involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict. If the attorney general deems Israel's actions in Iran to be unlawful then the UK is restricted in its ability to help to defend Israel or support the United States in any planned attacks on Iran. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said that the attorney general's concerns limit UK involvement in the conflict "unless our personnel are targeted". US President Donald Trump is currently weighing up his options for Iran and has repeatedly suggested the US could get involved militarily. This would likely involve the use of US B-2 bombers to drop bunker-busting bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear facility built deep into the side of a mountain at Fordow. These B-2 bombers could be flown from the UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, strategically close to Iran. The US could also choose to fly them the far greater distance from the US mainland. Under a longstanding convention, the UK grants permission to the US for the base to be used for military operations. The US military could also request the use of the UK military base in Cyprus, for refuelling planes. Any refusal by the British could complicate US military action and, diplomatically, put pressure on the trans-Atlantic relationship. Israel's justification Israel has justified its war by claiming that Iran poses an "imminent" and "existential" threat to Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cited his country's own undisclosed intelligence claiming Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Israeli government also claimed, without publishing evidence, that Iran was planning an imminent attack on Israel. They also cited the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report which concluded that Iran had been "less than satisfactory" in "a number of respects" on its international compliance over its nuclear activities. It is not clear what aspect of Israel's justification for military action the attorney general has concerns over. The Attorney General's Office has told Sky News: "By long standing Convention, reflected in the ministerial code, whether the law officers have been asked to provide legal advice and the content of any advice is not routinely disclosed. "The Convention provides the fullest guarantee that government business will be conducted at all times in light of thorough and candid legal advice." The UK armed forces have previously rallied to help defend Israel from Iranian missile and drone strikes when the two sides engaged in direct confrontation last year. 34:31 In April 2024, RAF typhoon jets shot down drones fired from Iran. The UK military was also involved in efforts to defend Israel from a ballistic missile attack in October 2024. But the UK has not been involved in the current conflict, which began when Israel targeted Iranian nuclear facilities and scientists as well as more definitive military targets such as missile launchers and commanders. The UN's nuclear watchdog has previously raised concerns about any attack against nuclear facilities because of the inherent danger but also the legality. A number of resolutions passed by the IAEA's general conference has said "any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency". Israel believes that Iran's nuclear programme has a military use, which makes it a legitimate target. It believes the regime is aimed to enrich uranium to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran, however, has always insisted its nuclear programme is for civilian use. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has also condemned Israel's use of armed force against Iran as a violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter and international law. Interpretations of International Law Different countries adopt varying interpretations on the use of force in response to future attacks. The first legal position is that nations can act preventatively to deflect threats. The second is that they can act to deflect future armed attacks that are imminent. The third is that states can only act to deflect attacks that have occurred. That third position is generally considered to be too restrictive and the first as too broad. The grey area lies with the second position, and it rests with the definition of "imminent". The concepts of 'proportionality', 'necessity' and 'imminence' are key considerations. International law scholars have told Sky News that Israel may pass the 'proportionality' test in its actions against Iran because its targets appear to have been military and nuclear. But whether there was the 'necessity' to attack Iran at this point is more questionable. The attorney general would likely be considering the key legal test of the 'imminence' of the Iranian threat against Israel - and whether it is reasonable to conclude that an attack from Iran was "imminent" - as he weighs the legal advice issued to UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. There is always nuance with legal advice, judgements rest on a variety of factors and advice can evolve. In the run up to the 2003 Gulf War, the US and UK justified their action by arguing that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction - a claim that turned out to be wrong. The then-attorney general's advice, which evolved, was central to Tony Blair's decision to join President Bush in attacking Iraq. The concerns of the attorney general emerged from enquiries by Sky News about whether the UK would help Israel to defend itself from attack by Iran. A separate source told Sky News that they would not steer us away from the claim over the attorney general's views. But the source said there is always nuance with legal advice and that it likely included other factors.
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Europe must stand without the US – but the latest war in the Middle East shows it has no idea how
The rupture in the transatlantic relationship has left European leaders struggling to know how to think, let alone act, with any autonomy. Europe most urgently needs a mind of its own on the Middle East. Tragically, EU governments were just beginning to turn the page after a year and a half of complicity with the Israeli government's war crimes in Gaza. Donald Trump's obscene plans for a Gaza 'riviera' and 'humanitarian' initiatives that breach humanitarian principles were creating distance with the US, and European governments were starting to craft their own course. France and Saudi Arabia had planned a conference on the two-state solution, which might have led to Paris's recognition of Palestinian statehood. More significantly, the EU had accepted a review of the EU-Israel association agreement, which, in light of Israel's war crimes, should lead to the suspension of EU preferential trade with Tel Aviv, but now may not. However, Israel's military attack on Iran and the US's ambiguous yet evident support for this belligerence have upended Europe's shift towards greater autonomy and moral clarity. Of course, there is no love for the Iranian regime in EU capitals because of its human rights violations and military cooperation with Russia, notably in the war in Ukraine. Moreover, Europe rightly remains adamant that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. There is particular alarm over the International Atomic Energy Agency's most recent report on Iran's breaches of the non-proliferation treaty. But we have traditionally stood firm on the need to resolve the Iranian nuclear question through diplomacy. This is why in the early 2000s European negotiators invented the 'E3/EU format', comprising diplomats from France, Germany and the UK alongside the EU high representative to mediate on Iran's nuclear file. Today that world is gone. When Trump launched a direct negotiation with Iran, Europe was sidelined, excluded from any mediation process. Now, with Israel's military assault on Iran, we have failed to position ourselves with the necessary clarity: where was the denunciation of the bombing as a breach of the UN charter (article 2), and the additional protocol to the Geneva conventions (article 56), which specifically prohibits attacks against a state's nuclear facilities? It is one thing to uphold Israel's (or any other state's) right to self-defence. Quite another to legitimise pre-emptive strikes. This chronic impotence arises because Europe has traditionally viewed the world through a transatlantic lens. On most international issues, it has, for decades, worked hand-in-glove with Washington, using aid, trade, diplomacy, sanctions, defence and EU integration to support US foreign policy aims, convinced that the overarching values and interests were shared. Only on rare occasions have European countries openly opposed the US – as France and Germany did with the Bush administration over the US-led war on Iraq in 2003. Even where there is a difference of approach, Europe has sought to influence US foreign policy by mitigating its hard edges rather than thwarting it. European mediation on the Iran nuclear weapons question, for example, led to the joint comprehensive plan of action in 2015. And as the global rivalry between the US and China deepened, EU governments distanced themselves from US calls for decoupling the western and Chinese economies, instead promoting the softer alternative of 'de-risking'. Trump's foreign policy wrecking ball, however, has created a world in which Europeans have to stand on their own feet. And they are struggling. On Ukraine, Europe has learned the hard way and stands firm, maintaining financial and military assistance to Kyiv while exploring ways of filling the gaps in the event of US disengagement. But apart from Ukraine, we are at a loss. It is true that Europe has toughened up on Beijing; it is no longer starry-eyed about China's belt and road initiative and the strategic risk posed by Beijing's policies in Europe. The EU has started screening Chinese investments in Europe and raised tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. But Trump's mixed signals mean that Europe needs to figure out alone what it thinks and wants from Beijing. The EU cannot afford a trade war on multiple fronts, especially if its own trade talks with Washington derail. European governments also know that there is no way they can meet climate neutrality by 2050, now enshrined in law, without cooperating with China, which is a leader in the green economy. Even in the unlikely event of a comprehensive 'deal' between Trump and Xi Jinping, it's hard to imagine Europeans reverting to the old days in which China was solely viewed as an economic partner and ally in defence of multilateralism. Europeans need to develop their own ideas and policies independently of an erratic White House, but they don't know how to get there. In its political wavering on the latest war, Europe has neither won favour from Washington nor improved its standing with Israel. In the meantime, it has lost all credibility as an honest broker with Iran. The cherry on the cake is that Russia has angled itself as a possible mediator instead, with Trump winking at this preposterous proposition. The risk is that Europe will also now block its own route to a more morally principled approach to the horrors in Gaza: the coming days will tell if the EU suspends its trade agreement with Israel, or if that too is put on the back burner. Ukraine is Europe's foremost security interest. Yet war, chaos and nuclear proliferation in the Middle East – which could be the unwanted consequence of the Israel-Iran war – are more consequential for Europe than for the US. So far, the European response is a far cry from thought or action, independent of the US. Nathalie Tocci is a Guardian Europe columnist
South Wales Guardian
3 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
The Senedd passes a ban on plastic wet wipes
From December 18, 2026, it will be an offence in Wales to supply – or offer to supply – wet wipes containing plastic after the Senedd unanimously agreed regulations. Huw Irranca-Davies, deputy first minister of Wales, said: 'There should be no place for wet wipes amongst the pebbles and the sand and the seaweed on our beautiful Welsh coastline. Mr Irranca-Davies, whose responsibilities include the environment, said a survey found 22 per cent of people admitted to having flushed wet wipes into the sewerage system. He warned a large volume of wet wipes – which often contain harmful plastic – enter the natural environment due to inappropriate disposal. He stressed an exemption will be in place if they are designed or manufactured for care and treatment because some people rely on medical-grade wet wipes that contain plastic. He explained that the regulations, which were passed by Senedd members on June 17, add plastic wet wipes to a 2023 law prohibiting a list of single-use plastic products. Mr Irranca-Davies said: 'This pollution, as we all know, is visible, its impact is tangible, and it's long-lasting. Taking decisive action will encourage manufacturers, retailers and consumers of the need to continue our shift towards reusable and non-plastic products.' He told Senedd members the ban will not extend to business-to-business supply, only covering supply to consumers as with other single-use plastics. 'Wet wipes for specific industrial use, where plastic-free alternatives are unsuitable or do not exist, are not included,' he said. 'But we will encourage these sectors to innovate.' The UK-turned-Welsh minister told the Senedd banning single use products is part of an ongoing drive to reduce the damage caused by microplastic pollution. The Conservatives' Janet Finch-Saunders said: 'It's not often that I say this but thank you very, very much… for bringing forward your statement today and indeed this ban.' Mr Irranca-Davies said the 18-month transition period will allow manufacturers time to adapt their business as he welcomed the cross-party support for the ban.
