Fining Kathleen Stock's university does not protect free speech
The University of Sussex has been fined £585,000 by the higher-education regulator, the Office for Students, for its handling of the resignation of Professor Kathleen Stock. The OfS claims that the university was in breach of 'our free speech and academic freedom requirements' and also found fault with 'the university's management and governance practices'.
Specifically, the OfS criticised the university's Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement, which it said had created a 'chilling effect' for staff and students who felt unable to voice gender-critical opinions.
Some are heralding this news as a free-speech victory: a public recognition of the disgraceful treatment of Stock by the university is indeed welcome, as even now many fail to see why the whole debacle was so damning for free speech on campus and personally distressing for her.
This kind of external intervention by a regulator is needed, some argue, and they welcome the new powers the OfS might enjoy following the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.
I am not cheering, though, despite being a free-speech absolutist. Sussex was my alma mater, and believe me, the problem with censorious behaviour long predates the Stock affair. The trans issue was just starting to crop up on campus in my second year; friends of mine were being ostracised from the leftie pools we all swam in for being perplexed with the demand that 'trans women were women'.
By the end of my time there, Judith Butler may as well have been handing out the handshakes at our graduation ceremony. Among both staff and students there were political biases that were hard to challenge for fear of being stigmatised.
The OfS claim that censorship was a top-down imposition by policies is at best generous, at worst inaccurate – the problem with free speech on campus runs much deeper. It's for this reason that fines and legal wrangling is not the solution for those of us who care about fighting censorship.
Free speech has long been in crisis on campus. You could crack that nut with fines and legislation, court rulings and government finger-wagging. But state supervision of universities is not going to solve the campus censorship crisis, nor is it something true freedom lovers should be comfortable with.
Take the response from Sussex University's vice-chancellor Professor Sasha Roseneil, who has managed to turn the ruling into a fight about minority rights. 'We will strongly contest these findings and have grave concerns about the implications of its decisions for students and staff, especially those from minoritised groups', she wrote in an article for Politics Home.
The university's response to the ruling was to argue that it will now be all but 'impossible for universities to prevent abuse, harassment or bullying on campuses'. Such histrionic blindness to the issue at hand shows how deep the rot goes when it comes to campus censorship.
Things are changing – and not thanks to ministers or regulators. Instead, what has opened up a chink of light for discussion about free speech on campus is individuals sticking their neck on the line.
The trans issue has been the most influential in both escalating and challenging a culture of conformity on campus. Ever since women like Stock, or Jo Phoenix, went public, it has shone a spotlight on the inadequacy of our universities when it comes to defending free expression.
Free speech can't be imposed; it has to be the foundation of a university from which everything else follows. We need to win the battle of ideas on campus – that means more students involved in fighting for free speech by holding public discussions and standing up for their peers to disagree with them on contentious issues.
It means staff rediscovering their mettle and refusing to be bullied by administrative bodies waving policy documents. And finally, change will also have to come from outside the campus walls, where the censorious cry of 'you can't say that' just doesn't wash anymore.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
a day ago
- Powys County Times
Opinion: Lib Dem led council must not close Powys day centre
They say 'a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable'. Yet as highlighted in last week's County Times, the future of the Sylfaen centre at Llanidloes is under threat. Sylfaen is a Powys County Council-owned day service in Llanidloes which offers service users aged 19 to 72 a programme of sensory-based activities including soap making, sensory craft, gardening, cooking and day trips. Yet there are fears that it could close under Powys County Council's Liberal Democrat-led cabinet. Bearing in mind that Disability is a Protected Characteristic under the Public Sector Equality Duty, public organisations have to consider the potential impacts fully and share the impact assessment with those affected. With that in mind, we need assurance that a full impact assessment about the closure of Sylfaen has been done and not a mere tick box. The general duty of the Equality Act 2010 (also known as the Public Sector Equality Duty or PSED) sets out that those subject to the duty must have due regard to the need to: Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act. Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. In Wales, the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) goes further and contains express provisions about engagement (Regulation 5) and equality impact assessments (Regulation 8) which are not present in the English PSED. Regulation 8 (1) of Equality Act 2010 (Statutory Duties) (Wales) Regulations 2011, states that: a. assessing the likely impact of its proposed policies and practices on its ability to comply with the general duty; b. assessing the impact of any: 1. policy or practice that the authority has decided to review, 2. revision that the authority proposes to make to a policy or practice, on its ability to comply with that duty; c. monitoring the impact of its policies on its ability to comply with that duty. The reality is Lib Dem led Powys expect volunteers and Direct Payments to plug the gap yet as is well known that's merely further pressure on carers and families.
Daily Record
2 days ago
- Daily Record
West Lothian school transport cost prompts question over free bus pass use
The council pays £1, 245 per pupil to provide 'free' school transport - but with the Scottish Government also providing free bus passes to under 22s, one councillor questioned why pupils were not being asked to use normal buses. Pupils in West Lothian could be asked to use public bus routes to get to school, after questions were raised over the cost of providing special transport. The council pays £1, 245 per pupil to provide 'free' school transport - but with the Scottish Government also providing free bus passes to under 22s, one councillor questioned why pupils were not being asked to use normal buses. And the council has confirmed they are looking at 'crossover' areas where normal public transport may be a suitable alternative. The cost to the council for school transport in the last year was more than £3m - but the 'use the bus pass' option is not the simple answer it might appear. Conservative councillor Alison Adamson, speaking at a recent Environment Policy Development Scrutiny Panel meeting, said: 'I hate using the expression free costs the council £1,245 to take each child to schools. That's not free in anyone's language.' 'I don't understand the Scottish Government saying that anyone up to a certain age gets free transport, but we have to find the money for school children to get to school so my question is. Can we find a way of tapping into free transport budget.? 'Why is that free but councils have to find funding to get children to get to school. I find that very difficult to understand. A lot of people would too? Given how much money it costs I find it very very difficult to swallow.' Chairing the meeting Labour's Tom Conn said 'I think the answer will be that the council is obliged to take pupils to school. We have a responsibility under legislation to support that, but I take your point.' He added that school contract buses 'take children from A to B', directly to schools, whereas commercial networks don't. In East Lothian a proposal in this year's budget by the ruling Labour group to encourage schoolchildren who have nationally funded under-22 free bus passes to stop using school passes was challenged by opposition groups. Under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, the council has a statutory responsibility to provide school transport for those pupils living over the qualifying distance for home to school transport. Section 42 (4) of the Act clarifies that the statutory walking distance is two miles for any pupil under the age of eight, and three miles for any other pupil where attending their catchment school. The council can discharge this duty through contracted school transport, using council owned vehicles, utilising the commercial bus network or even through mileage payments to parents for self-travel. The council will consider a number of factors when considering which transport option is most appropriate including available resources, the needs of pupils and the suitability and availability of the bus network. The total 2024/25 cost for school buses was £3,194,373. A West Lothian council spokesperson said: 'Although commercial bus routes may exist they may not provide sufficient connection to meet the council's statutory obligations for school transport. 'West Lothian Council has a generous home to school policy which provides transport for secondary pupils living 2 or more miles from their catchment school and 1.5 miles for primary pupils. 'However, work is ongoing to assess the crossover between the school network and the local bus network to identify if there are any opportunities to enhance and supplement the options for transport for school pupils in the future.'
Rhyl Journal
2 days ago
- Rhyl Journal
‘We don't want to go back to court', says women's group over gender ruling delay
For Women Scotland (FWS) challenged the meaning of a woman in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act, with the UK's highest court ruling the definition in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex. The decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for transgender people in accessing services, but the Scottish Government has declined to make changes to guidance until the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issues its own guidance, which is expected to take place in the coming months. But speaking at a fringe event at the Scottish Conservative conference in Edinburgh, FWS co-director Susan Smith said the group was considering a further legal challenge against the Government. Speaking to journalists after the event, she said: 'We have spoken to the Scottish Government and asked them to withdraw some of this guidance, just to say that it's under review – they don't have to re-issue anything at this point – because it's clearly unlawful, we really do need some action. 'They're telling us they have to wait for the EHRC revised guidance and we don't believe this is true.' Ms Smith added that, if a woman were to be assaulted in prison by a transgender prisoner, the Government could be taken to court by the victim. 'I think they need to step up and take a bit of responsibility because these things are under their remit,' she said. She added: 'We don't want to go back to court, we really, really don't, but if we don't see some action that may be something we will have to consider.' Ms Smith said the group is speaking with its lawyers but she would not say if there was a timeline for action to begin. The co-director stressed that if ministers were concerned about a challenge to their guidance from the pro-trans rights side of the argument, they should be worried about one from FWS and other such groups too. 'They seem worried about a legal challenge from the other side,' she said. 'But my message to them would be they should be more worried about a legal challenge from the people who have the law on their side.' Ms Smith was joined at the fringe meeting – which was hosted by Tory MSP Pam Gosal – by former foreign secretary James Cleverly. Mr Cleverly was part of the Conservative-led government which blocked the Scottish Government's controversial gender reforms. The Government proposed removing the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria as a requirement for obtaining a gender recognition certificate – a process known as self identification. The move was scuppered by then-Scottish secretary Alister Jack, who used Section 35 of the Scotland Act to block the legislation. Mr Cleverly told attendees the move showed the 'importance of the union'. 'This issue was clearly spiralling out of control, badly out of control,' he said.
