Fifth of academics do not feel free to teach controversial topics, survey shows
One in five academics on both sides of the political spectrum do not feel free to teach controversial topics, a survey has found as England's higher education watchdog issued guidance on how institutions can protect freedom of speech.
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
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tough action needed to halt level of attacks on police in NI, federation warns
Legislators and courts need to take 'tough and decisive action' to counter the 'shocking and appalling' toll of attacks on police officers, the Police Federation for Northern Ireland has said. The federation, which represents rank-and-file Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) officers, said nine officers on average are being assaulted every day in the region. During recent unrest in Northern Ireland, more than 70 officers have been injured, with some treated in hospital. However, the federation has highlighted that officers deal with the daily risk of assault which often leads to injury and time off work, placing additional pressure on serving colleagues. It has launched the 'Let Them Protect' public campaign, backed by PSNI Chief Constable Jon Boutcher and Justice Minister Naomi Long. Federation chairman Liam Kelly said the nine-a-day figure was conservative as many officers who suffer more minor assaults do not report them. He said: 'These figures are shocking and appalling. It's high time we saw a much tougher approach with assailants who strike, kick, punch and spit at our colleagues. 'We want the public to realise the full extent of what our officers – themselves fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters – have to suffer. 'It's not right they should end up in hospital with injuries they sustain while protecting the community.' Mr Kelly added: 'Decisive and tough sentences handed down by magistrates and judges will deter those who assault our police officers. 'Sentencing guidelines must be strengthened to empower the courts, to implement an effective deterrent.' Ms Long said police officers in Northern Ireland demonstrate 'extraordinary courage' every day. But she added: 'Shockingly, some people still feel that it is OK to attack or assault a police officer or that it's simply part of the job. 'That is not an acceptable attitude towards any other member of society and is certainly not an acceptable manner to treat those who uphold the rule of law and place themselves in harm's way to protect others.' She added: 'I am committed to introducing stronger legislation to protect police officers and staff and will include a new offence, with a higher maximum penalty, for assaulting a person who is providing a service to the public, performing a public duty or delivering a public service in the Sentencing Bill. 'I hope to introduce this legislation to the Assembly in the autumn of this year.' Chief Constable Mr Boutcher said: 'Policing is a tough profession and the officers and staff of the police service who stand up to serve the people of Northern Ireland deserve nothing but our admiration and respect. 'Every one of them does a vital job and whilst they come to work knowing that on any given day they could be faced with difficult and dangerous situations, what we should never accept, is for them to be physically assaulted. 'Being attacked should never be thought of as part of anyone's 'normal day' at work.' Mr Boutcher said the public cannot continue to take policing for granted. He said: 'Support for policing, and for our police officers, needs to be society-wide, and it should be recognised and understood that it is simply not acceptable to assault or attack police officers. 'We cannot, and will not, simply stand by and accept it.' Policing Board chairman Mukesh Sharma said: 'Police officers step forward when others step back. 'They put their lives on the line for others every day and they do not deserve to come to work to be kicked, bitten or assaulted in any other way. 'Regrettably, figures show that officer assaults are no longer isolated incidents and should not be tolerated.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Esther Rantzen and terminally ill preacher make case for assisted dying Bill
A terminally ill Christian preacher has criticised the 'nonsensical' religious argument against assisted dying that suffering must be part of life, as Dame Esther Rantzen urged MPs to pass a Bill she said could 'transform the final days of generations in the future'. The broadcaster made a plea to parliamentarians on the eve of Friday's vote to change what she branded a 'current, cruel, messy criminal law'. The House of Commons will have a debate and vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday, which will see it either progress to the House of Lords or fall completely. Dame Esther, a staunch supporter of Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, has been a prominent voice in the conversation on assisted dying. Last week, Labour MP and Bill opponent, Rupa Huq, pledged to be a voice for the voiceless, noting that the Childline founder and others' views are already well-known. She added: 'We know that Esther Rantzen wants this. We know (broadcaster) Jonathan Dimbleby wants this. 'But our role is to be voice of the voiceless as well.' Dame Esther, who is terminally ill with cancer, said the 'truly voiceless' are the terminally ill who face ' an agonising death' and their relatives. She told the PA news agency: 'This is a crucial debate for the truly voiceless. 'They are the terminally ill adults for whom life has become unbearable and who need assistance, not to shorten their lives but to shorten an agonising death – and their loved ones who under the current law will be accused of committing a crime if they try to assist or even stay alongside to say goodbye. 'These are the truly vulnerable and voiceless who depend on our lawmakers to change our current, cruel, messy criminal law. 'All this Bill allows is choice for desperately ill adults who are dying anyway but want the confidence of knowing that they can ask for help to choose what we all hope for; a quick, pain-free death with good memories left behind as their legacy for those they love. 'Please allow us terminally ill the dignity of choice over our own deaths. A change in the law cannot come in time for me, but will transform the final days of generations in the future. Those who disagree with assisted dying under the new law will have the right to their own choice, please allow the rest of us to have the same right.' Dame Esther's words came as a group of terminally ill and bereaved people shared their stories at a press briefing alongside the Labour Bill sponsor, Ms Leadbeater, on Thursday. Church of England lay preacher Pamela Fisher, who is terminally ill with cancer, made an impassioned speech against the religious arguments made by some who oppose assisted dying. She said: 'I completely reject the assumption that the sanctity of life requires terminally ill people to undergo a distressing and painful death against their will. I disagree with those that say it is God alone who decides how and when we die. 'Yes, life is a gift from God to be honoured, but it's nonsensical to say that assisted dying is wrong because suffering is part of God's plan for us.' The Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Vincent Nichols – who is opposed to assisted dying – has previously argued that the suffering of human beings is 'an intrinsic part of our human journey, a journey embraced by the eternal word of God, Christ Jesus himself'. Meanwhile, Anil Douglas, whose father took his own life having suffered with multiple sclerosis, recalled the trauma of finding him. He said a six-month police investigation followed, and told the press conference: 'The law in this country failed my father.' He added: 'The (current) law leads people like my father to make lonely and dangerous decisions. It does not protect against coercion. It does not offer protections or choice for dying people. 'It does not offer terminally ill, mentally competent adults with six months or less to live, the chance to choose a safe and compassionate death when even the very best palliative care is not enough. It leads to lonely, dangerous, traumatic deaths.' Bill opponents have argued it is not robust enough to protect the most vulnerable against coercion, and others who might choose assisted dying because they feel they are a burden. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, 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.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
UK Talks to Administrators as Thames Nationalization Risk Grows
The UK has been talking to administrators about next steps for Thames Water as it intensifies preparations for a possible form of temporary nationalization, according to a person familiar with the government's plans. Environment Minister Steve Reed is rejecting calls from creditors for special treatment on sewage fines, setting the stage for a showdown which could end with plans to rescue the company falling apart.
