Latest news with #FreedomofSpeech)Act
Telegraph
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Free speech on campuses stifled by excessive regulation, says Oxford professor
Free speech on university campuses is being stifled by excessive government regulation, a leading Oxford professor has suggested. Timothy Garton Ash, professor of European Studies at the university, has raised concerns about new laws aimed at protecting free speech on campus. While acknowledging 'significant threats to free speech in universities ', he argued it was students and academics – not the Government – who should decide 'what we should and should not say'. 'That whole path down which we've gone down of government regulation is actually not the right way to go,' he told the Oxford Literary Festival, partnered with The Telegraph. 'A university should be a place where we – academics, students, and everyone involved – figure out what we should and should not say. 'One of the problems we have at universities is that over the last 50 years, we've become entangled in ever more thickets of government regulation, some of which are self-contradictory. 'You have health and safety regulation, then you have the equality and diversity regulation – which is all about things you probably shouldn't have said. 'Then you have Prevent, the counter-terror legislation – which is quite explicitly telling people what not to say – and now we have a new body of regulation that is the precise opposite, that you must let people say these things.' 'It's a bad idea' Initially, Labour halted the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, passed under the previous Conservative government in 2023. It has since decided to push ahead with protecting free speech at universities. Lord Patten of Barnes, chancellor of Oxford University from 2003 to 2024, who was in conversation with Prof Garton Ash, replied: 'I totally agree with that. All politicians have difficulty accepting autonomous institutions which are part of the checks and balances in democracy. 'It's a bad idea to introduce government legislation in free speech.' In January, Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, said the Act would impose a duty on universities to secure and 'promote' freedom of speech. She said: 'Academic freedom and free speech are fundamental to our world-leading universities and this government is committed to protecting them. 'These changes protect free speech but avoid implementing excessive and burdensome provisions which could have exposed struggling universities to disproportionate costs, diverting money away from students to pay lawyers. 'The decisions we are making about the Act demonstrate that we were right to pause commencement and to review its impact before making decisions on its future.'
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
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.
Yahoo
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Universities must put academic freedom above commercial interests, says free speech tsar
Universities must put academic freedom above their commercial interests, the free speech tsar has said. In an interview with The Telegraph, Professor Arif Ahmed said vice-chancellors must 'show backbone' by upholding their commitment to free speech even when it jeopardises lucrative contracts. He suggested that many universities are 'not doing their due diligence' before entering into research partnerships with foreign states, warning that these arrangements are making them vulnerable to free speech clampdowns. 'Universities need to understand that their reputational interests are less important than academic freedom,' Prof Ahmed said. 'If a foreign country tries to threaten a university into suppressing the speech of one of its academics, it's the job of the vice-chancellor to show backbone in that case.' His comments come after repeated warnings that China has threatened to remove funding or investment from universities if they do not clamp down on academics critical of Beijing. It is his first interview on the subject since the Government shelved new free speech protections for universities last summer, before U-turning earlier this year. Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, said last July she would pause and consider repealing the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act entirely, just days before it was due to come into force. Ms Phillipson said the flagship Conservative legislation was 'not fit for purpose', with senior Labour sources branding it a 'Tory hate speech charter' that would create a platform for Holocaust denial on campus. However, the Education Secretary announced in January that she would revive the Act in a watered-down version, with several key elements removed. It came a week before the Government was set to face a High Court challenge over the decision to shelve the laws. In a wide-ranging interview with The Telegraph, the free speech tsar declined to comment on either the Government's rowback or the High Court case, in which he was listed as an 'interested party'. Prof Ahmed said it was 'not for me to get into sort of political discussions', but that he would not hesitate 'to speak my mind on particular issues as they come to us'. The Telegraph understands that the new free speech regulations are set to come into force before the next academic year in September, although the Department for Education is yet to officially confirm this. Prof Ahmed will oversee a new complaints scheme as part of the Act, allowing him to sanction universities if they are found to have stifled free speech for academics or visiting speakers. Changes announced by Ms Phillipson mean there will no longer be a compensation scheme for victims of cancel culture, known as the 'statutory tort'. Ministers are also yet to decide whether to reinstate part of the legislation that would require the Office for Students (OfS), the universities regulator, to 'monitor overseas funding' for universities. This would have required the OfS to scrutinise whether any funding received by universities from overseas sources presented a risk to free speech and academic freedom. China hawks said the move would have helped stamp out attempts to suppress criticism of Beijing on UK campuses through expensive partnerships and donations. Prof Ahmed told The Telegraph that the new free speech regulations would still grant him powers to 'look carefully and closely and rigorously at whatever arrangements universities have… where these have the potential to give rise to concerns about academic freedom and freedom of speech, whatever country it is.' Asked whether he was particularly concerned about China, the free speech tsar said there were fears that some countries may be using academic partnerships as 'instruments for spying on or for intimidating or for harassing people in this country'. 'Suppose you have an academic who expresses concerns about the human rights record of Country X, for instance. And then the ambassador of Country X talks to the vice-chancellor and says, 'well, you know that grant we were going to give you, we might not give it to you now','he said. 'Then the vice-chancellor of the university has a word with the academic and says, 'you better tone it down a bit', in a vaguely threatening way. That's contrary to everything university is for.' It comes after The Telegraph revealed last year that Michelle Shipworth, an associate professor at University College London (UCL), was forced to drop an entire module on her energy and social sciences course after Chinese students complained about some of its content. Her head of department at UCL told her he was taking action because 'in order to be commercially viable', the university's courses 'need to retain a good reputation amongst future Chinese applicants'. Prof Ahmed, the director of freedom of speech and academic freedom at the OfS, warned that Britain is sliding down the Academic Freedom Index, currently ranking 66th on the global free speech chart. '[The UK's position] has dropped radically over the past few years, and is behind pretty much every other European country,' he told The Telegraph. 'We think that's an indicator of the significance of the scale of this issue… It's a vitally serious issue, and it remains fundamental to democracy.' He suggested universities should consider allowing students to discuss certain topics under Chatham House rules, which prohibit participants from revealing the source of particular comments made during discussions. 'We think that there could be some quite positive things that we can do in that area… Should there be deep listening? Should there be students being encouraged to write essays defending the other side? Should there be Chatham House rules?' The free speech tsar also insisted that his new complaints scheme would 'not allow anti-Semitism, anti-Semitic harassment, anti-Semitic abuse or other illegal activity' to take place on campus. 'The Act absolutely does not hold freedom of speech for speech that's outside of the law,' he said. 'I'm definitely keen to move forward with bringing things into force… There are obviously social benefits and economic benefits to freedom of speech and academic freedom. 'More broadly, I would say it's the most important thing for Western civilisation, for our country, that freedom of speech continues to survive. It's the greatest thing we've had since the 17th century, and it's really important that we preserve it.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Universities must put academic freedom above commercial interests, says free speech tsar
Universities must put academic freedom above their commercial interests, the free speech tsar has said. In an interview with The Telegraph, Professor Arif Ahmed said vice-chancellors must 'show backbone' by upholding their commitment to free speech even when it jeopardises lucrative contracts. He suggested that many universities are 'not doing their due diligence' before entering into research partnerships with foreign states, warning that these arrangements are making them vulnerable to free speech clampdowns. 'Universities need to understand that their reputational interests are less important than academic freedom,' Prof Ahmed said. 'If a foreign country tries to threaten a university into suppressing the speech of one of its academics, it's the job of the vice-chancellor to show backbone in that case.' His comments come after repeated warnings that China has threatened to remove funding or investment from universities if they do not clamp down on academics critical of Beijing. It is his first interview on the subject since the Government shelved new free speech protections for universities last summer, before back-tracking earlier this year. Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, said last July that she would pause and consider repealing the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act entirely, just days before it was due to come into force. Ms Phillipson said the flagship Conservative legislation was 'not fit for purpose', with senior Labour sources branding it a 'Tory hate speech charter' that would create a platform for Holocaust denial on campus. However, the Education Secretary announced in January that she would revive the Act in a watered-down version, with several key elements removed. It came a week before the Government was set to face a High Court challenge over the decision to shelve the laws. In a wide-ranging interview with The Telegraph, the free speech tsar declined to comment on either the Government's rowback or the High Court case, in which he was listed as an 'interested party'. Prof Ahmed said it was 'not for me to get into sort of political discussions', but that he would not hesitate 'to speak my mind on particular issues as they come to us'. The Telegraph understands that the new free speech regulations are set to come into force before the next academic year in September, although the Department for Education is yet to officially confirm this. Prof Ahmed will oversee a new complaints scheme as part of the Act, allowing him to sanction universities if they are found to have stifled free speech for academics or visiting speakers. No compensation for cancel culture victims Changes announced by Ms Phillipson mean there will no longer be a compensation scheme for victims of cancel culture, known as the 'statutory tort'. Ministers are also yet to decide whether to reinstate part of the legislation that would require the Office for Students (OfS), the universities regulator, to 'monitor overseas funding' for universities. This would have required the OfS to scrutinise whether any funding received by universities from overseas sources presented a risk to free speech and academic freedom. China hawks said the move would have helped stamp out attempts to suppress criticism of Beijing on UK campuses through expensive partnerships and donations. Prof Ahmed told The Telegraph that the new free speech regulations would still grant him powers to 'look carefully and closely and rigorously at whatever arrangements universities have… where these have the potential to give rise to concerns about academic freedom and freedom of speech, whatever country it is.' Asked whether he was particularly concerned about China, the free speech tsar said there were fears that some countries may be using academic partnerships as 'instruments for spying on or for intimidating or for harassing people in this country'. 'Suppose you have an academic who expresses concerns about the human rights record of Country X, for instance. And then the ambassador of Country X talks to the vice-chancellor and says, 'well, you know that grant we were going to give you, we might not give it to you now','he said. 'Then the vice-chancellor of the university has a word with the academic and says, 'you better tone it down a bit', in a vaguely threatening way. That's contrary to everything university is for.' It comes after The Telegraph revealed last year that Michelle Shipworth, an associate professor at University College London (UCL), was forced to drop an entire module on her energy and social sciences course after Chinese students complained about some of its content. Her head of department at UCL told her he was taking action because 'in order to be commercially viable', the university's courses 'need to retain a good reputation amongst future Chinese applicants'. Falling behind Europe Prof Ahmed, the director of freedom of speech and academic freedom at the OfS, warned that Britain is sliding down the Academic Freedom Index, currently ranking 66th on the global free speech chart. '[The UK's position] has dropped radically over the past few years, and is behind pretty much every other European country,' he told The Telegraph. 'We think that's an indicator of the significance of the scale of this issue… It's a vitally serious issue, and it remains fundamental to democracy.' He suggested universities should consider allowing students to discuss certain topics under Chatham House rules, which prohibit participants from revealing the source of particular comments made during discussions. 'We think that there could be some quite positive things that we can do in that area… Should there be deep listening? Should there be students being encouraged to write essays defending the other side? Should there be Chatham House rules?' The free speech tsar also insisted that his new complaints scheme would 'not allow anti-Semitism, anti-Semitic harassment, anti-Semitic abuse or other illegal activity' to take place on campus. 'The Act absolutely does not hold freedom of speech for speech that's outside of the law,' he said. 'I'm definitely keen to move forward with bringing things into force… There are obviously social benefits and economic benefits to freedom of speech and academic freedom. 'More broadly, I would say it's the most important thing for Western civilisation, for our country, that freedom of speech continues to survive. It's the greatest thing we've had since the 17th century, and it's really important that we preserve it.'
