Universities ‘on notice' after Kathleen Stock treatment, says minister
Baroness Smith of Malvern, the universities minister, told The Telegraph that higher education institutions must take lessons after the University of Sussex was hit with a record fine for breaching Dr Stock's free speech.
The Office for Students (OfS), the higher education watchdog, fined the institution £585,000 in March and ruled that it had failed to protect the academic from being hounded out over her gender-critical views.
Dr Stock resigned from her post as a philosophy lecturer at the University of Sussex in 2021 following a string of campus protests calling for her to be fired. The academic also faced death threats over her beliefs.
Baroness Smith said universities could face even larger sanctions if other academics were subjected to similar treatment, with new free speech laws set to come into effect on Friday.
'We have seen too many instances where those on campus have had their voices silenced and the chilling effect that has taken hold in some institutions cannot continue,' she told The Telegraph.
'The record fine recently handed down to the University of Sussex has put universities on notice that they must uphold academic freedom and not allow lawful opinions to be silenced. The Office for Students has made clear that any institution that flouts them in future could face even higher penalties.'
It marks a change in tone from the Government after Labour last year tried to shelve free speech laws drawn up in the wake of Dr Stock's case and other high-profile episodes of cancel culture on campus.
Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, pulled the plug on flagship Tory legislation designed to protect academics last July, days before it was due to come into effect, and said she would consider repealing it altogether.
The Government later U-turned on the decision following widespread backlash from academics, with the new free speech laws now coming into force on Aug 1 – a year behind schedule.
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act means universities must now actively promote academic freedom, rather than just uphold it, and will face significant fines if they breach free speech duties.
Arif Ahmed, the OfS's director of academic freedom, will oversee a new complaints scheme for academics and visiting speakers who think their right to free speech has been violated. Universities will also be banned from using non-disclosure agreements to silence victims of sexual assault or abuse on campus.
However, Labour has removed several key elements of the legislation as drawn up by the Tories, including a legal compensation mechanism for victims of cancel culture, known in the Act as the 'statutory tort'.
The Department for Education said on Friday that the tort would have 'saddled universities with disproportionate legal costs' and 'rendered the rules unworkable'.
Ministers have also removed part of the legislation aimed at curbing Chinese influence at British universities. This would have cracked down on anonymous donations to UK higher education and required the OfS to 'monitor overseas funding'.
These will instead be kept 'under review' while the Government assesses the impact of a new foreign influence registration scheme introduced by the Home Office in July.
The decision will rile China hawks, who have insisted the measures would help stamp out attempts to stifle criticism of Beijing at British universities through lucrative international partnerships and donations.
Baroness Smith told The Telegraph that Labour's watered-down free speech rules 'strike the right balance' and will encourage debate to take place on campus 'without fear or favour'.
'Earlier this year we reaffirmed our commitment to introducing the Freedom of Speech Act, and new powers are coming into force today,' she said. 'They strike the right balance between a system that can actually be implemented effectively and the robust rules that are needed to protect free and open expression on university campuses.
'Academic freedom is at the heart of our world class university system, and we are determined to ensure campuses are places where robust exchanges of ideas can take place without fear or favour.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
7 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Vandalising Wes Streeting's office is not protest, it is violent criminal intimidation
It is a sight that is becoming more common as social justice warriors abandon old-fashioned ideas of legal protest: a prominent MP turns up for work at his constituency office only to find the windows smashed and offensive graffiti painted across the front of the building. The clean-up costs will be met by the tax-payer but the fear and intimidation that the attack was intended to generate will be felt most keenly by vulnerable staff members working in Wes Streeting's Ilford North headquarters, and even by the health secretary's constituents. Responsibility for the attack was claimed by Trans Bash Back, a 'trans-led direct action project'. Sharing an image of the front of the office shortly after it had been vandalised, they wrote on social media: 'Don't want action? Don't kill kids.' That sinister threat was even echoed by a Scottish Green candidate standing at next year's Holyrood elections. Iris Duane took to Twitter in the aftermath of the attack to write: 'If you don't want 'child killer' sprayed onto your office, have you considered not killing children?' The accusation of infanticide comes from Streeting's acceptance of the recommendations of the extensive and authoritative Cass review of health care for adolescents questioning their gender identity, which led to a ban on new patients under 18 being prescribed puberty blockers. It's natural that people who feel strongly about this issue or the other two topics in the holy trinity of social justice causes – Palestine and climate change – should want to vent their fury at politicians who disagree with them. But the modern era has spawned a new type of activist who sees flagrant breaches of the law, including criminal damage, as an entirely legitimate form of protest. This seems to be based on a belief that their cause is special, even uniquely virtuous, and that because the injustice felt by the protesters when they don't get their own way is felt so intensely, the range of 'remedies' open to them is broadened beyond the limits of the law. Even when protesters are prosecuted and jailed, there is outrage from these same groups who seem to believe that violence, provided it is perpetrated for the 'right' cause, must be exempt from all consequences. Even our national broadcaster is partly culpable for encouraging, by its inaction, such dangerous exceptionalism. The attack on Streeting's office is but the latest incident by activists taking out their frustrations and sense of entitlement on the constituency bases of MPs who refuse to vote the way they demand. In November 2023, pro-Palestinian activists daubed Labour MP Jo Stevens's Cardiff office with red paint after she abstained on a parliamentary vote on Gaza. A year earlier former Tory MP Peter Bone's constituency office in Wellingborough was similarly vandalised, apparently in protest at recent sleaze allegations against his party. And earlier this year, the Shrewsbury MP Julia Buckley, was forced to abandon her constituency office after it was targeted three times in as many weeks. These are all egregious attacks on our democratic process and democratic norms. And each of them was adequately covered on the BBC News website. But as of today, no word on the latest attack on Streeting's office has been reported by the BBC. Which is deeply odd, since the corporation even has a special designated section of its vast website devoted to trans issues, replete with preferred pronouns and tales of 'stunning and brave' gender transitions. And yet, when the darker side of trans activism is revealed in all its shoddy and unpleasant details, when public sector employees live in fear that the violence perpetrated on buildings will be targeted at them next, the BBC suddenly has nothing to say, and will not even report the facts. In an era where two MPs in the last decade have been murdered by violent extremists, the need to protect our elected representatives – and their staff – from all forms of violence and intimidation has never been more urgent. But such protection is not nearly enough. The media must be made to understand that for all the fears of a growth in the threat of the political 'far Right', fascism comes from both sides of the political spectrum, and so does the accompanying violence. Forcing others, by violence or intimidation, to parrot your own political opinions is a fundamental aspect of fascism. Those who cross the line separating legal from illegal protest demean the democratic process because they have demonstrated that they themselves believe it no longer has any value for them. Only by exposing every incident of vandalism, wanton damage, threatening behaviour or literal violence, whatever the motives of the perpetrators, can the foundations of civilisation be prevented from crumbling.
The Independent
36 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reeves acknowledges voter disappointment amid fresh call for wealth tax
Chancellor Rachel Reeves says that Labour must deliver change to earn victory in the next election, acknowledging that some voters are disappointed with the party's progress. She said she is also 'impatient for change' but stressed that ministers cannot implement everything at once, highlighting her responsibility for financial prudence. These remarks coincide with growing public concern over Sir Keir Starmer 's government, whose approval rating recently reached an all-time low. Ms Reeves defended the government's tax policy, saying it has found the right balance despite the challenge of addressing public finance deficits. The discussion follows former Labour shadow chancellor Anneliese Dodds' call for a wealth tax, as recent polling indicates a significant perception of chaos within Sir Keir's administration.
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Revealed: The areas facing £500 council tax rises
Householders face eye-watering council tax rises of more than £500 thanks to Rachel Reeves's spending review, analysis has found. Treasury documents released in June said local authorities would be able to put up their bills by the maximum 5 per cent for the next three years. Now a breakdown of council tax rates has disclosed for the first time which areas are likely to fare worst. The analysis by the TaxPayers' Alliance reveals that Gateshead faces the largest rise, with typical bills expected to be £567 higher there in 2028/29. With maximum increases imposed, the bill for a Band D home would rise from £2,578 to £3,145. Those in the most expensive Band H homes would see their bills rise £1,134 to £6,290, according to the TaxPayers' Alliance. Large increases would also affect Nottingham (up £563 for Band D and £1,126 for Band H) Rutland (£550 and £1,100) and Bristol (£549 and £1,108). Taxpayers in Dorset, Hastings, Oxford and Newark and Sherwood will also see increases of more than £500. The highest council tax bills will be in Rutland, where charges will increase from £2,671 this year to £3,221. Band H ratepayers in England's smallest county will have to pay £6,442. However, Rutland is subject to local government reorganisation and may be merged with another area by 2029. Elliot Keck, head of campaigns at the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'Council tax is the ultimate stealth tax, given the way in which successive governments have piled on responsibilities to town halls without the resources to pay for them but with the permission to hike bills for residents. 'And this Government clearly intends to continue this trend by allowing years of above-inflation council tax rises, further increasing the crippling tax burden on British families and workers. 'By the end of this Parliament, the grim milestone of the first £3,000 Band D council tax bill will have been reached. 'Labour should impose lower, inflation-linked referendum caps on councils and aim for national solutions to crises such as that around social care.' Ms Reeves announced as part of June's spending review that Home Office budgets would fall by 1.4 per cent over the next three years as she sought to balance the books. The small print of the Treasury document said some of the shortfall in police funding this implied could be made up by increasing the police precept included in council tax bills. On top of this, it said that local authorities would be able to increase their parts of council tax bills by 3 per cent, plus an extra 2 per cent if they provided adult social care. These increases would be allowed for the next three years, the Treasury said. Average Band D bill to rise £395 The imposition of maximum increases over three years implies that for Band D households, bills will go up by £395 after three years. Average council tax is currently £2,280 – so the increase would put this up to £2,675. The largest Band H households would pay £5,350 on average. But the TaxPayers' Alliance analysis shows that the situation will be even worse in areas which are already paying high council tax. However, the shape of the local government map could change radically over the next three years. Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, wants to get rid of district councils and merge their powers with that of county councils. She wants everywhere outside metropolitan areas to have a unitary authority with a population of around 500,000. It means councils such as Rutland, with a population of just 41,000, will be merged into neighbouring authorities.
