Read on Twitter
A thread in which I set out concerns with the UK government’s plan for addressing free speech in universities.
Given existing reliable surveys on free speech, the plan is misplaced, and, even on its own logic, will likely be counterproductive.
[1/30] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55995979
Given existing reliable surveys on free speech, the plan is misplaced, and, even on its own logic, will likely be counterproductive.
[1/30] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55995979
The BBC report doesn’t cite evidence justifying such intervention. While there are instances of some censorship on campuses, these are not sufficiently widespread to justify the government’s measures, which are akin to using sledgehammers to crack a nut.
[2/30]
[2/30]
There are already free speech laws governing universities. The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 provides for “such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees”.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/61/section/43
[3/30]
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/61/section/43
[3/30]
There are additional duties regarding free speech in the Act.
There are also protections for academic freedom in the Education Reform Act 1988, s. 202.
[4/30]
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/40/section/202
There are also protections for academic freedom in the Education Reform Act 1988, s. 202.
[4/30]
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/40/section/202
This duty is echoed in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 which requires the Office for Students in performing its functions to have regard to the need to protect the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers (s. 2).
[5/30]
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/29/section/2/enacted
[5/30]
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/29/section/2/enacted
This means, among other things, the freedom within the law of academic staff at English higher education providers— (i) to question and test received wisdom, and (ii) to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions,
[6/30]
[6/30]
without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at the providers.
[7/30]
[7/30]
The Office for Students already sets out freedom of speech as a condition of registration for higher education providers: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/regulation/conditions-of-registration/public-interest-governance-principles/.
[8/30]
[8/30]
This requires that the governing body “takes such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured within the provider.”
[9/30]
[9/30]
The OfS also says that it may consider in judging whether a provider has in place adequate and effective management and governance arrangements to deliver, in practice, the public interest governance principles a free speech code of practice. [10/30]
https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/securing-student-success-regulatory-framework-for-higher-education-in-england/
https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/securing-student-success-regulatory-framework-for-higher-education-in-england/
Academics are also protected under the general right to freedom of expression. Importantly, there is also the broader principle of academic freedom.
[11/30]
[11/30]
There is now considerable guidance and policy to assist universities on freedom of expression, including the EHRC’s ‘Freedom of Expression: A Guide for Higher Education Providers and Students’ Unions in England and Wales’, February 2019.
[12/30]
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/freedom-expression-guide-higher-education-providers-and-students-unions-england
[12/30]
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/freedom-expression-guide-higher-education-providers-and-students-unions-england
As for the government’s plan to extend the law on free speech to students’ unions, this, too, seems misplaced. The Joint Committee on Human Rights (Freedom of Speech in Universities. Fourth Report of Session 2017-19, 21 March 2018) states ( https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201719/jtselect/jtrights/589/58902.htm):
[13/30]
[13/30]
“The extent to which students restrict free speech at universities should not be exaggerated. Where it happens, it is a serious problem and it is wrong. But it is not a pervasive problem.
[14/30]
[14/30]
“The evidence we have taken shows that overall there is support for the principle of freedom of speech among the student population […] much of the concern about free speech appears to have come from a small number of incidents which have been widely reported” (p. 4).
[15/30]
[15/30]
Also, it is not clear why the government believes it necessary to introduce law allowing compensation through the courts if someone suffers loss from a breach of a free speech duty, for instance through being expelled, dismissed or demoted.
[16/30]
[16/30]
Employment law already provides protection through the duty of trust and confidence between employer and employee – though such protection has, ironically, been attenuated by various Conservative governments’ undermining of expertise and through their broader policies.
[17/30]
[17/30]
It is also unclear why such special measures for compensation would be necessary given that violation of the right to freedom of expression already allows for court-ordered compensation.
[18/30]
[18/30]
The idea of a government ‘free speech champion’ placed in the Office for Students is disturbing. Academics and academic institutions are already best placed to determine what is acceptable academic discourse; this is what the right to academic freedom entails.
[19/30]
[19/30]
Academic freedom includes freedom from government control.
It is also concerning that the planned so-called ‘champion’ will serve under Lord Wharton, newly appointed Chair of the OfS, who has no formal professional or occupational experience of the academic sector.
[20/30]
It is also concerning that the planned so-called ‘champion’ will serve under Lord Wharton, newly appointed Chair of the OfS, who has no formal professional or occupational experience of the academic sector.
[20/30]
The BBC quotes Tom Simpson in support of the measures. His reasons are risible. He refers to a "very online culture". What does this mean? He claims that this phenomenon allowed the views of a minority to exert disproportionate influence on administrators and
[21/30]
[21/30]
to "exert a chilling effect on other academics". It's not clear what this “influence” is. Why “disproportionate” and how is this measured? Which administrators have been affected? What is the scale of any impact? Administrators generally are not so easily influenced.
[22/30]
[22/30]
One of the greatest threats to free speech is caused by the current government’s policies, which have led to a spike in redundancies and increasing precarious employment.
The Prevent policy is also widely recognised as having a chilling effect on free speech.
[23/30]
The Prevent policy is also widely recognised as having a chilling effect on free speech.
[23/30]
The Education Secretary Gavin Williamson has threatened universities that do not adopt the IHRA antisemitism definition even though the definition is contested. Oliver Dowden, Culture Minister, recently said, in clear violation of academic freedom, that a valid,
[24/30]
[24/30]
previously funded and highly respected research project on slavery and colonialism will not be funded. Michael Gove has denigrated experts and Chris Heaton-Harris MP, now Minister for Transport, interfered in academic affairs by requesting reading lists from VCs.
[25/30]
[25/30]
The Tories have been threatening these measures for years. Yet a number of cases, such as the case of Selina Todd at Oxford, were resolved. There have been no substantial, systemic controversies involving free speech which warrant implementation of these threats.
[26/30]
[26/30]
A ‘free speech champion’, a single arbiter of free speech, will undermine academic freedom. Combined with a threat of financial penalty, academics and institutions will start to play safe. This will likely end up chilling freedom of expression.
[27/30]
[27/30]
The government’s ulterior motive appears to be to clear space for expression of views that better align with its own. We have some evidence from recent government and MPs’ statements that the real targets here are those on the Left and those smeared with the term ‘woke’.
[28/30]
[28/30]
These look less like measures to promote free speech than an authoritarian attempt to bully academics and universities into line with a view to enabling the spread of government-approved views. This would be disastrous for UK higher education (and our impact globally).
[29/30]
[29/30]
Those of us who are committed to freedom of expression, academic freedom, and associated critical inquiry in the best traditions of scholarship in this country and globally, won’t sit idly by and allow this to happen.
[30/30]
[30/30]
