Campaign news

(20.08.26) OfS free speech complaints scheme to launch in September 

The long-delayed enforcement architecture of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 ("HEFSA") is finally materialising, and will come into operation on the 1 September 2026.
 

From this date, staff, visiting speakers and non-student members at English higher education providers will be able to complain directly to the OfS if they believe their lawful free speech or academic freedom rights have been infringed. With a specialist regulator able to investigate such complaints and recommend remedies – including requiring universities to review decisions, pay compensation or change their internal processes – this is a significant step forward. 
 

Just as importantly, from April 2027, the wider regime will also be backed by strengthened mandatory free speech conditions of registration, with providers that breach those conditions facing the possibility of substantial financial penalties. 
 

It should not have taken this long to get here. As originally enacted, the legislation rested on two principal enforcement mechanisms: a statutory tort, which would have enabled individuals to bring civil claims, and the complaints scheme. Yet one of Bridget Phillipson’s first acts on taking office in July 2024 was to pause commencement of most of the Act’s provisions. Then, in a forced U-turn in January 2025 (take a bow, free speech campaigns including the Free Speech Union, whose judicial review was a huge factor, and indeed ourselves), the Government decided to bring most of HEFSA into force, but not the statutory tort. A revised complaints scheme would, it said, follow once “necessary” legislative changes had been made. By the time the main free-speech duties finally commenced on 1 August 2025, however, the complaints scheme had still not appeared. 
 

That it has now done so is largely thanks to sustained pressure from those who refused to let the issue drop, including AFFS, the Committee for Academic Freedom, Academics for Academic Freedom and the Free Speech Union (FSU). We each played our part in organising letters to ministers, circulating briefings and drafting parliamentary questions urging the Government to bring the scheme into force. 
 

For AFFS, the significance of the new scheme lies partly in the kinds of problem it may help expose. Much of our recent work has focused on speech-restrictive practices embedded in the ordinary machinery of university life: recruitment criteria, promotion frameworks, EDI and harassment policies, training programmes and compliance documents. While these are not always dramatic cases of no-platforming or speaker cancellation, they concern the underlying institutional structures and policies - and lack thereof - which give rise to these. Such arrangements operate systemically, and are an ultimate, and sometimes direct, cause of most free speech failures, for instance by encouraging or forcing academics to demonstrate alignment with contested institutional orthodoxies, or to avoid arguments that might later be redescribed as “harmful”, “hostile” or insufficiently “inclusive”. They change universities’ plumbing, ensuring that the water will always exclude some chemicals necessary for health.
 

Until now, AFFS has spent a lot of time challenging  those pressures upstream, at the level of university policy, forcing changes by confronting universities with their unlawful actions. Our most recent example is our project about universities requiring demonstrations of support for EDI in their recruitment, in which we forced 36 universities to stop doing this. There is evidence that this is already happening. Other signs of success are AFFS recording this year an apparent increase in the number of universities with institutional neutrality policies, and finding (for the first time) universities planning to appoint dedicated officers with responsibility for free speech.
 

We have, however, spent a lot of time taking up particular free speech failures (the downstream effects of policies and practices which lead to them), such as in respect of Dr Michael Foran at Oxford. The complaints scheme adds a new and really strong form of accountability in this regard, giving those who experience these downstream effects – staff investigated, or fearful of investigation, for their lawful speech; speakers obstructed from addressing an audience; people not protected when harassed because of their viewpoints; and those who quietly self-censor because they can already read the institutional weather – a direct route to the regulator. 
 

The result should be greatly increase pressure at both ends of the machine. With groups like AFFS continuing to challenge speech-restrictive policies upstream, and academics making use of their right to seek redress downstream, often with support from free speech organisations, our hope is that the incentive structure for universities will begin to change. Rather than treating free speech as an afterthought, or simply not considering it at all, universities will have to give it serious weight from the start, and to comply with their duties and avoid expense and embarrassment.
 

Indeed, we hope that, in years to come, a sign of the scheme’s success may will be relatively few complaints being brought. Its real power lies not in its ability to act punitively, but pre-emptively – with administrators operating in the knowledge that bad practice can now attract regulatory scrutiny, and that curtailing lawful speech simply for fear that someone, somewhere on campus may be offended by critical debate and robust discussion is no longer likely to pass muster. 

-----------------------------------------------------------

..............................................................................

​

(20.08.26) Oxford reported to the OfS in respect of its failures in the Michael Foran case
 

AFFS has reported to OfS the apparent serious free speech protection failures at the University of Oxford in respect of its handling of protests at meetings at which Dr Michael Foran was speaking and sent a letter to Oxford setting out our concerns. Much depends, of course on what the facts actually are, so we qualify that letter and our report accordingly. Some key sections of the letter are on pages 10 (second half) to 11 (top) and pages 16-18.
 

It does amaze us that the Proctor’s Office can possibly have thought it appropriate to allow a protest inside the lecture theatre, or indeed inside the relevant building. Not doing so is surely common sense, as well as pretty clearly a legal obligation, and is expressly referenced in the OfS's guidance. It is [even more] extraordinary that, after the disruption at the first lecture and the subsequent complaints, alarm bells didn't ring and the Proctors made the same mistakes all over again.
 

It also appears to us that Oxford’s governance and management regarding free speech protection have failed dramatically, and that this has a strong likelihood of having contravened condition of registration E2.  We gave Oxford time to consider our letter, but have heard nothing. 
 

We are therefore recommending that the OfS investigates apparent serious free speech protection failures. Alternatively, we recommended in our letter to Oxford that they appoint an external adviser to review what went wrong and advise on appropriate steps to set their failures right and to avoid problems in the future Key questions for the OfS to clarify would be: why the Proctor’s Office proceeded the way it did, and who took the decisions? Were the staff too junior, or insufficiently trained, or conflicted? There is more than a whiff of bad goverance and management here, which Oxford would do well to dispel.

 

(14.07.26) AFFS successfully pressures 36 universities to change their recruitment requirements to ensure free speech 
 

Following the findings of our 2025 Report, AFFS has published a follow-up Report into equality, diversity, and inclusion (“EDI”) requirements in recruitment at UK universities University EDI Support Requirements in Recruitment: 2026 Report. This concerns universities which require, within job advertisements, applicants to demonstrate their commitment to EDI or undertake duties to promote and support EDI.
 

For some time, we have been aware of universities publishing job advertisements which:
 

• require applicants to demonstrate their support for EDI (termed “EDI Support Evidence”); and/or

• refer to duties on employees to promote or support EDI (termed “EDI Support Duties”).
   

Universities which include these types of requirements are highly likely to be at risk of breaching the free speech rights of applicants, as well as being in breach of their own obligations towards free speech. In fact, the Office for Students (“OfS”) specifically states that such requirements “may be restricting the lawful expression of certain viewpoints”, and makes clear, with examples, that such requirements are likely to be unlawful.
 

At the start of what turned out to be a 9-month project, we found roughly the same proportion of failures as in our 2025 review; despite, for English universities, a significant strengthening of the legal requirements on universities and the publishing of guidance from the regulator in the intervening time.
 

Having found these issues, AFFS has now completed its campaign to pressure these universities to change their requirements: to great success! This involved writing to the universities, detailing their failures, and informing the OfS of stubborn non-compliers, where necessary.
 

Following repeated warnings by AFFS to those 70 universities:
 

• 36 (51.4%) fully remediated their failures, no longer imposing either type of requirement; a further 9 made material improvements, meaning that 45 (64.3%) of the universities we found to be failing had wholly or partially corrected their failures by the end of this project.

• 43 English universities were formally reported to the OfS after failing to remedy the issues we raised, of which 9 were recommended for formal investigation.
   

It provides clear evidence that sustained – and, vitally, justified – pressure by free speech campaigners on universities to comply with their legal and regulatory requirements to protect free speech pays dividends. English universities are becoming increasingly aware that the OfS, as their regulator, is empowered and focused, and that they are now properly accountable.
 

However, despite the successes AFFS has seen:
 

• 33 universities remain in breach of their obligations towards free speech; this must stop without further delay.

• 17 universities which were found to be failing in our 2025 Report remain in likely breach now, despite several warnings and strengthened legal and regulatory requirements and guidance in the interim. Four of those 17 are Russell Group universities which received letters detailing their specific failures in both our 2025 and 2026 projects.
   

The Russell Group performed conspicuously worse than the other universities: 20.8% receiving a rating of 0 from AFFS, as opposed to just 5.1% of all other universities. (AFFS created a rating system for a university’s compliance. The full results table can be found in Appendix 1 of our Report.

Some thoughts on the Report and its implications 
 

It is clear that increased accountability and an active regulator are every bit as important as free speech campaigners have long been urging. Universities’ new persuadability to actually comply with their duties is evidence that these will make a huge difference.
 

This level of continuing non-compliance is a serious concern, not only for academic freedom and free speech generally in the UK, but as a live risk to the universities themselves. Recent high-profile examples of the financial and reputational consequences of free speech failures, particularly at the University of Sussex and the Open University, are clear illustrations to universities of the dangers of getting this wrong.
 

AFFS believes that continuing non-compliance can increasingly less credibly be ascribed to ignorance. Universities have been warned – by AFFS and others, including the OfS – so often that these actions can and often do lead to legal and regulatory failures that, in the absence of some very good explanation, it is reasonable to assume that the worst offenders must be indifferent to whether they are acting compliantly or not, or have chosen to continue to take the risks of acting illegally despite being well informed about the issues. This is very serious and should be causing profound management concern.
 

Over-zealous implementation of EDI agendas is the cause of many of our free speech problems. This is widely recognised, for instance by the Dandridge Review into the Open University/Jo Phoenix debacle. It is obviously the cause, in this case, of 70 universities operating apparently unlawfully. This really is systemic. It appears to us that the entrenchment of EDI at some institutions is so deep, and internal pressures to promote it so strong, that the juggernaut has continued to roll forward long after it went through the safety barrier.
 

See our Report here, for further detailed information about this project and our findings and a link to our website here.
 

​

(29.05.26) AFFS warn Edinburgh University of likely unlawful EDI-related hiring requirements

 

AFFS has formally warned the University of Edinburgh that its use of mandatory EDI “commitment” requirements in academic recruitment and promotion processes may be unlawful and incompatible with free speech protections.

 

Our investigation found academic job adverts listing “demonstrable commitment to promoting and embedding EDI” as an “essential” requirement, alongside promotions policies requiring staff to “demonstrate commitment” to EDI agendas.

 

While much promoted under the EDI banner is uncontroversial – and in some cases legally required – various highly contested ideas associated with gender identity ideology and critical race theory are also frequently advanced and effectively enforced under it. Recent case law has recognised that opposition to such beliefs is protected under the Equality Act.

 

That matters because, once “commitment to EDI” becomes an essential criterion in recruitment or promotion, universities risk turning lawful dissent from contested ideas into a professional disadvantage. Requiring academics to support, promote, or otherwise affirm adherence to EDI frameworks may therefore create serious legal risks, not just under the Equality Act, but under free speech legislation and the Human Rights Act.

 

AFFS’s wider review of UK university recruitment practices suggests Edinburgh is the only Scottish university imposing requirements on applicants to jobs and promotion to be committed to EDI. This risks turning hiring and promotion processes into de facto mechanisms for enforcing adherence to contested ideological orthodoxies, while chilling legitimate academic dissent and critical scholarship.

 

AFFS first warned Edinburgh about these likely compliance failures in November 2025. In its response, the University did not engage with the specific matters we raised, and further adverts using similar requirements continued to appear.

 

We have now written formally to senior University officers in a public letter and will report the University to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Charity Commission and the Scottish Funding Council, notifying these bodies of the University’s likely compliance failures and recommending that, where appropriate, they take investigative and, if required, enforcement action against the University of Edinburgh.

 

Read The Herald’s coverage of AFFS’s intervention here, and read our full letter to the University of Edinburgh here.

(29.05.26) Steven Greer publishes new book "Islamophobia and Free Speech"

As those who have followed free speech cases over the past few years may remember, Steven Greer was a professor of law specialising in Human Rights at the University of Bristol.

The events concerning him are, briefly, as follows. In Autumn 2020, the Islamic Society at the University of Bristol made a complaint alleging that Greer was Islamophobic because he had stated that in his teaching that Islam spread through war, conquest, trade and conversion, and that there are some human rights, such as freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, women’s rights and the rights of minorities, with which traditional Islam is in friction. The University dragged Greer through a punishing and severely mismanaged disciplinary investigation which, while it eventually entirely exonerated him, concluded with the removal of Greer’s module on Islam and human rights from the syllabus. Last year, the Committee for Academic Freedom published an interview with Greer about his experiences here.

Steven Greer’s newly published book "Islamophobia and Free Speech" discusses censorship of criticism of Islam. We recommend it for everyone interested in this important contemporary subject. 

(29.05.26) AFFS warn Edinburgh University of likely unlawful EDI-related hiring requirements

AFFS has formally warned the University of Edinburgh that its use of mandatory EDI “commitment” requirements in academic recruitment and promotion processes may be unlawful and incompatible with free speech protections.

Our investigation found academic job adverts listing “demonstrable commitment to promoting and embedding EDI” as an “essential” requirement, alongside promotions policies requiring staff to “demonstrate commitment” to EDI agendas.

While much promoted under the EDI banner is uncontroversial – and in some cases legally required – various highly contested ideas associated with gender identity ideology and critical race theory are also frequently advanced and effectively enforced under it. Recent case law has recognised that opposition to such beliefs is protected under the Equality Act. That matters because, once “commitment to EDI” becomes an essential criterion in recruitment or promotion, universities risk turning lawful dissent from contested ideas into a professional disadvantage. Requiring academics to support, promote, or otherwise affirm adherence to EDI frameworks may therefore create serious legal risks, not just under the Equality Act, but under free speech legislation and the Human Rights Act.

AFFS’s wider review of UK university recruitment practices suggests Edinburgh is the only Scottish university imposing requirements on applicants to jobs and promotion to be committed to EDI. This risks turning hiring and promotion processes into de facto mechanisms for enforcing adherence to contested ideological orthodoxies, while chilling legitimate academic dissent and critical scholarship.

AFFS first warned Edinburgh about these likely compliance failures in November 2025. In its response, the University did not engage with the specific matters we raised, and further adverts using similar requirements continued to appear.
 
We have now written formally to senior University officers in a public letter and will report the University to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Charity Commission and the Scottish Funding Council, notifying these bodies of the University’s likely compliance failures and recommending that, where appropriate, they take investigative and, if required, enforcement action against the University of Edinburgh.

Read The Herald’s coverage of AFFS’s intervention here, and read our full letter to the University of Edinburgh here.

(21.05.26) The Cofnas case: opposition to aspects of EDI as protected viewpoints under the Equality Act

Our sibling campaign, Best Free Speech Practice (“BFSP ”) has just produced a new statement on implications of the case of "Dr Nathan Cofnas of Faculty of Philosophy -v- The Master, Fellows and Scholars of Emmanuel College". Dr Cofnas is a philosopher of biology and was a college research associate at Emmanuel College, Cambridge. The College terminated his position after he wrote a blog arguing for “race realism”. Cofnas subsequently took the college to court.

The judgement in this case is very significant, as it has found that two new types of belief –“hereditarian” and “anti-woke” beliefs (as defined in the judgement) – are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Both beliefs are contrary to ideas standardly promoted and sometimes effectively enforced at universities under the banner of equality, diversity, and inclusion (“EDI ”), although Cofnas’ beliefs are also contrary to more widely held ideas. We stress that, as a free speech campaign, we do not take any position on the merits of Cofnas’ views, our aim is solely to ensure freedom of speech within the law.
It is already clear that opposition to (and non-belief in) various component agendas and ideas which are advanced under the EDI umbrella are already protected under the Equality Act.

The really significant development is that it is increasingly likely that opposition to and non-belief in EDI as an umbrella under which many controversial viewpoints (opposition to which is protected under the Equality Act) are promoted and enforced, is a protected belief under the Equality Act. There are two aspects to this: beliefs that:
 

• the ways in which many contested views and agendas are promoted, implemented and enforced under the EDI banner in ways that that restrict debate or dissent; and/or

 

• the promotion, implementation and enforcement of EDI as a banner under which such ideas are advanced in ways that that restrict debate or dissent, are profoundly harmful to free speech and academic freedom, and thus to a healthy society, and thus are to be opposed.

The Cofnas case therefore further confirms what BFSP has warned universities of for some time: that universities requiring staff to be committed to EDI, or persecuting or permitting the persecution of those who dissent from it or the ideas advanced under it, is highly likely to be unlawful. See more below.

BFSP’s new statement will be a valuable tool in convincing universities that they are legally required to tolerate – and indeed to protect – the expression of lawful views which are widely considered to be offensive. Finally, although Cofnas’ beliefs were found to be protected, he lost the case because the way in which he manifested those beliefs was found to be “objectionable”. He is now seeking to appeal the judgement, and we hope to be able to provide further information on this case in future.

(14.05.26) AFFS leads sector-wide push for institutional neutrality

nstitutional neutrality policies designed to protect free speech, viewpoint diversity and academic freedom appear to be gaining traction across UK higher education, according to new research by Alumni for Free Speech (AFFS).

Published a year after AFFS and allied campaign groups wrote jointly to vice-chancellors and senior administrators urging universities to adopt such policies, our latest UK-wide survey suggests this shift is taking place as universities face mounting legal, institutional and reputational pressures – from both external political controversy and internal activist staff networks – to take official positions on contested social, political and moral issues.

Reviewing the publicly available policies and governance documents of 175 UK universities, AFFS documented the scale of that shift.
 

• Between January 2024 and January 2026, the number of Russell Group universities with formal public commitments to institutional neutrality more than doubled, rising from three institutions to seven.

 

• Across the sector as a whole, AFFS identified 32 universities that have now adopted such commitments. Of those, 27 were rated “good” or “excellent”, following an assessment of the strength and clarity of their commitments, including whether they contained caveats liable to weaken the principle.

 

• Universities that have formally adopted institutional neutrality include Queen Mary University of London, Imperial College London, the University of Edinburgh, King’s College London and the University of Bristol.

As the report explains, the purpose of institutional neutrality is to create an open and tolerant environment in which academics and students can freely express and explore ideas on the contested questions of the day, from Net Zero and reparations for empire to women’s sex-based rights and “decolonisation”. When a university, and by implication its senior leadership, adopts an official position on such questions, those who disagree may reasonably conclude that dissent is institutionally unwelcome. That can chill speech, narrow viewpoint diversity and make the university less hospitable to the free inquiry it exists to protect.
But neutrality is not only a matter of academic culture. The report argues that it is also one of the most effective ways for universities to reduce legal and regulatory exposure in this area. Where an institution takes sides in a polarised debate, staff or students who hold lawful but dissenting views may be treated less favourably, subjected to a hostile environment, or discouraged from speaking openly. With the Office for Students-administered free speech complaints scheme due to commence on 1 September 2026, adopting institutional neutrality is a practical way for universities to reduce the likelihood of non-compliance with their enhanced statutory duties under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act and avoid creating an environment in which members of the academic community feel unable to express views the institution appears to disapprove of.

AFFS and its partner organisations have now written to UK university leaders, urging institutions that have not yet adopted institutional neutrality to do so formally and publicly. Addressed to vice-chancellors, senior officers and chairs of council, the letter warns that, as adoption increases, institutions that fail to act may increasingly be seen as laggards that are less serious about protecting free speech than their peers. It concludes with a clear message: universities that want to demonstrate a serious commitment to free speech should now make institutional neutrality a formal part of their governance.

_Times Higher Education_ has covered the report here. The accompanying letter to university leaders can be read here, and the full report here.

(24.4.26) Date set for autumn Office for Students complaints scheme

After a long delay, the Government has confirmed that the Office for Students free speech complaints scheme will be up and running by the autumn.
This is a genuinely welcome step.

For too long, academics and visiting speakers have had no realistic route to challenge restrictions on lawful speech short of costly and often impractical litigation. A free, regulator-backed complaints scheme has the potential to make a real difference, not just by resolving disputes after the fact, but by encouraging universities to take their free speech duties more seriously in the first place.

This progress follows sustained pressure from across the sector — including Alumni for Free Speech — to ensure that statutory protections are matched by a workable route to enforcement.

Much will now turn on how the Office for Students uses these powers in practice, and whether individuals feel able to navigate the process and bring well-founded complaints. If it works as intended, this could mark a significant step forward in aligning the law on free speech with how it operates on campus.

(23.4.26) Free speech concerns with the position of the Henry Jackson Society re students mourning the death of the Ayatollah

AFFS led the creation of a joint letter from various free speech campaigns to universities addressing recent calls by the Henry Jackson Society (HJS) for several universities to take action in response to student societies mourning the death of Ayatollah Khamenei. The letter sets out our disagreement and concerns (as free speech campaigners) with the HJS’s position in the context of the implications for freedom of speech within universities.
No matter how unattractive the views expressed may be to some, they must be allowed unless they stray into unlawfulness, for instance by glorifying terrorism, or contravene anti-harassment policies.

The letter is helpful in clarifying the issues in what is not a straightforward area, and supporting a principled approach to protecting lawful expression on campus. Maintaining institutional neutrality is a vital navigational tool in such circumstances.

(26.02.26) Free speech at St Andrews: a disappointing Chancellorship election result

St Andrews alumni have elected, former UK ambassador to Russia, Dame Anne Pringle to the Chancellorship of St Andrews. AFFS is unaware of any particular interest that Dame Anne has shown in free speech and academic freedom, so her election is something of a disappointment for those who care about free speech. See Here.

Shortly before the Chancellorship Election, AFFS wrote to the four candidates requesting information about their position on free speech. Dame Anne’s election statement had made no reference to free speech or academic freedom in her Personal Statement and she was not among the candidates who responded to AFFS questions. Based on the AFFS’ review and analysis of candidates’ responses, AFFS and The Free Speech Union recommended that alumuni should vote for two other candidates from a purely free speech perspective. See AFFS’ detailed report and recommendation here. Nonetheless, as explained in out report, AFFS equally has no reason to believe that Dame Anne holds any concerning views on free speech issues and we congratulate her or her election.

St Andrews’s senior management has not, in our view, evidenced much appetite for the hard work, and occasional discomfort, involved in ensuring free speech and academic freedom in the currently controversial environment that pervades so many of our institutions. Although, disappointingly, Dame Anne did not refer to the importance of free speech and academic freedom in her remarks following her election, as the University’s new Chancellor she needs to show some leadership and exert her soft power in support of free speech. AFFS will continue to hope for the best while continuing to monitor and report on the concerning situation at St Andrews about which we have previously written (See here).

(25.02.26) AFFS’ work on EDI commitment requirements for job applicants: interim update

AFFS is currently conducting work on a major project tackling UK university practices of requiring applicants to academic jobs to demonstrate their commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusion (“EDI ”).

Such university practices of requiring applicants to academic jobs to be committed to particular values, beliefs, or ideas are highly likely to be unlawful – but have increasingly been introduced in UK universities in recent years. See our May 2025 Report for more details.

AFFS is reviewing the hiring practices of all English, Welsh, and Scottish universities. Where we find requirements that are likely in breach of free speech legislation, we write to that university, warning them of their legal risks. We will publish the results of our research and engagement with universities in a forthcoming full report.

The below is only a small sample of our work thus far, the full details of which will be published in our report. However, we are pleased to announce that, following engagement from AFFS, the following universities have taken substantive positive steps to bring themselves into compliance, with which we are very pleased :

· University of Cambridge
· University of Liverpool
· Royal College of Music
· Royal Northern College of Music
· Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance
· University of Cumbria
· University of East London
· University of Portsmouth
· Arts University Plymouth
· London Metropolitan University
· Health Sciences University

AFFS would like to commend these universities for their efforts to protect free speech. Changes to the law, and the complexity of the subject matter create genuine difficulties for universities to comply with their legal obligations. Where universities show willingness to protect free speech and to comply, we much prefer to engage positively and constructively.

Some universities, however, have failed or refused to act , despite receiving repeated warnings from AFFS. In these cases, AFFS has reported these universities to the Office for Students (“OfS ”), the regulator for English universities, setting out in detail why these universities are likely to be in breach of their free speech legal and regulatory obligations. These universities include:
 

• Anglia Ruskin University

• Birmingham Newman University

• Brunel University

• Harper Adams University

Reporting these universities to the OfS enables the OfS to formally engage either with warnings or advice. It also provides the OfS with evidence of the scale of non-compliance and free speech restriction at UK universities – crucial to ensuring the OfS is able to continue its work to enforce free speech protection at UK universities.

In particularly egregious cases, AFFS has recommended that the OfS formally investigate universities. At present, we have recommended that the OfS investigate:
 

• Durham University

• University of Birmingham

We are currently writing to many universities across the country about likely breaches of their free speech obligations in their hiring practices. We will present their responses and the state of their free speech compliance in our forthcoming report.

(28.01.26) Pressure letter to Government re implementation of OfS complaints scheme

AFFS has helped draft an open letter Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, urging her to bring the vital OfS complaints scheme into effect. This was not done last summer, but is vital for ensuring proper accountability for university failures. There is nothing like financial risk to concentrate their minds. They have been used to operating with little accountability regarding free speech failures in the past. While things have improved a great deal in recent years, with some huge Equality Acts “protected beliefs” cases and a big fine on Sussex last year, this vital missing tool.

(28.01.26) Senedd elections May 2026

With parties preparing their manifestos ahead of the Senedd elections on 7 May 2026, our friends at Cardiff Academic Freedom Association (CAFA) have published a non-partisan set of recommendations on strengthening academic freedom in Wales. Key proposals:
 

• A Welsh Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act — since England’s version doesn’t fully apply in Wales.

• Ensuring Wales’s new sector regulator, Medr, treats academic freedom as a core priority.

• Encouraging universities to adopt the Chicago Principles and commit to “free, robust and uninhibited debate”.

Please share this information with friends who are based in Wales or affiliated with Welsh universities

(19.01.26) St Andrews Prepares for Imminent Chancellor Elections

Following the recent similar votes at both Oxford and Cambridge, there will soon be an election for the next Chancellor of St Andrews University. As with the Oxford and Cambridge elections, AFFS will be seeking information from candidates about their attitude to free speech and academic freedom. St Andrews graduate will already have been sent an invitation to register to vote and confirmation of voting arrangements.

The whole process is somewhat truncated. Candidates are to be announced on the university website on 26 January. Voting opens on 16 February and closes only six days later on 22 February. Please bring the election to the attention St Andrews graduates. AFFS are sending a standard questionnaire to candidates once announced and will make a recommendation based on answers received. We suggest that anyone who had registered by the 9 January deadline waits to see the results of our research before voting.

(06.01.26) AFFS reports Durham to the OfS for likely free speech compliance failures in its recruitment practices

AFFS is conducting an ongoing review of UK universities’ free speech legal and regulatory compliance in their recruitment practices. In December 2024, AFFS found that Durham University required applicants to certain academic jobs to provide an “EDI & values statement – (of no more than 500 words)” which “demonstrates your commitment to EDI and our values”. AFFS found this requirement, and other similar requirements, in advertisements for the jobs placed by the university.

Universities are required by their legal duties not to place requirements on applicants to be committed to values, beliefs, and ideas, including EDI, so Durham’s requirements were very likely unlawful. AFFS wrote to Durham warning it that these requirements likely constituted a serious legal compliance failure, and indicated likely regulatory compliance failures.

In January 2025, AFFS was pleased to receive an assurance from Durham that it would “no longer have the requirement for applicants to complete a statement on values or beliefs as part of their application for academic roles at Durham University”. We subsequently wrote about this in our report _University Recruitment: EDI requirements causing free speech compliance failures_.

However, AFFS’ research, as of September 2025 has found that, while the requirement for applicants to complete a 500 word statement on EDI and university’s values has been removed, other non-compliant requirements remain. For instance, multiple advertisements stated that applicants must “demonstrate their… commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion”, and others included in sections dealing with “essential” criteria for their roles a “demonstrable commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusion”.

AFFS wrote to Durham warning that these requirements were likely serious compliance failures, and subsequently wrote again warning the university that, unless these requirements were removed, AFFS would report the university to the Office for Students (“OfS”). We received no response to our emails, and Durham has subsequently issued further advertisements containing the same likely compliance failures.
AFFS has therefore reported the Durham to the OfS, and recommended that the OfS formally investigate the university for these likely free speech compliance failures.

AFFS’s final letter to Durham can be found here.

We hope that the OfS will conduct a thorough investigation into Durham, and that the university will be made entirely to cease requiring applicants to academic positions to be committed to values, beliefs, or ideas – whatever those values, beliefs, or ideas may be – and to comply with its free speech duties. This would be a great improvement at Durham, and a highly effective signal to other universities, many of which, as found in our report, are similarly non-compliant, that they must cease imposing such ideological requirements on job applicants. We are therefore hopeful for an important moment for free speech here.

However, this is the first formal report we have made for such failings, and is done with a slightly heavy heart. This is likely to result in real problems for Durham – free speech failures recently cost Sussex University £585,000 – so we spend a lot of time attempting persuasion. Sadly, this has failed, and we have had to turn to enforcement.

(02.12.25) New AFFS research: levels of EDI spending significantly correlated to free speech non-compliance

In the first study of its kind, AFFS has evidenced a statistically significant correlation between levels of universities’ spending on EDI and levels of free speech non-compliance in their recruitment and promotion processes. While that correlation is (of course) not exact, it is pretty startling.

This Report compares 33 universities’ EDI spending with the extent to which they have to comply with their legal and regulatory duties to protect free speech in recruitment and promotion.

The findings are clear: the more a university spends on EDI, the more likely it is to be non-compliant with its free speech obligations.
This Report is a comparison of two previous pieces of work completed by AFFS, our 2023 Report on EDI Spending at UK Universities and our Report on University Compliance in Recruitment and Promotions. This is believed to be the first time this kind of analysis has taken place, and proves an undeniable relationship between EDI spending and free speech non-compliance.

What the data shows

The results of our comparison reveal a significant correlation between EDI Spending and institutional non-compliance:
 

• Universities which spend over £450,000 annually on EDI were overwhelmingly likely to be non-compliant with free speech requirements. In fact, all but one with spending above that figure had non-compliant recruitment or promotions practices.

 

• Universities spending below £450,000 were significantly more likely to be compliant: with the majority being found to be compliant.

 

• The relevant Russell Group universities both spent more, on average over £240,000 more – approaching double – on EDI, and were more likely to be non-compliant, with an average non-compliance rating 27.5% higher, than those of non-Russell Group members.

 

• A regression analysis shows that EDI spending is a predictor of free speech non-compliance at the 95% confidence level.

This reinforces what recent cases – as evidenced by the Dandridge Review into failures at the Open University – have already demonstrated: poorly structured or aggressive EDI agendas can result in direct breaches of universities’ legal obligations to protect free speech and academic freedom.

Why is this happening?

Concepts around EDI have expanded into a broad and often ambiguous set of goals, many of which go far beyond what equality law requires, the promotion and enforcement of which can actively infringe free speech rights.

At the same time, UK universities are spending huge amounts of money on EDI programmes and staff. Across just 40 universities, nearly £20 million was spent on EDI in 2023.

This friction, between EDI and free speech, creates very real problems for universities. As previous AFFS research has shown, many universities require job applicants to “demonstrate commitment” (_inter alia_) to EDI or impose duties on employees to actively promote EDI viewpoints. In both cases, these sorts of requirements and duties are highly likely to be in breach of multiple legal and regulatory requirements, as confirmed by the OfS. This can, as the University of Sussex recently found out, have serious financial and reputational repercussions.

Demonstrating the connection

To examine any relationship between levels of EDI spending and of non-compliance, universities were allocated non-compliance rating, based on the findings of our previous report, which were coloured to represent their severity: red for the worst offenders, to green to those found to be compliant. Universities’ levels of EDI spending was then coloured using the same numbers of colours as the compliance ratings.

The [table sets out the key findings of AFFS’s study, which is sorted by levels of EDI spending, clearly shows a broad correlation between EDI spending and non-compliance.

Thanks to Dr John Armstrong at Kings College London, a regression analysis of this data shows that EDI spending is a predictor of free speech non-compliance at the 95% confidence level.

AFFS’s study shows, for the first time, that high EDI spending is highly likely to produce environments where lawful dissenting viewpoints are discouraged or penalised, in this case in the context of university recruitments and promotions.

What’s more, given the prevalence of Russell Group universities at the top of the table, it is clear that Russell Group universities are, on average, spending more and are more likely to be non-compliant. This matches the figures, which show that non-Russell Group both were more likely to be compliant than, and underspent, those in the Russell Group: at 78.4% and 60.4% of the rate of Russell Group universities.

What universities need to do

To avoid the serious repercussions of non-compliance, AFFS urges universities to match any spending on EDI with:
 

• Increased care to secure free speech, and entrenched caution about, and care to avoid, possible consequent damage to free speech and indeed compliance failures;

 

• a commensurate increase of spending on free speech protection;

 

• their having a dedicated member (or members) of staff charged with ensuring that free speech and academic freedom receive attention commensurate with that received by EDI; and

 

• a university-wide policy of “institutional neutrality”, as recommended by free speech campaigners, referred to in the Dandridge Review and already implemented by a number of universities.

Read the full report here.

(17.10.25) Nathan Cofnas acquitted by University of Cambridge

Dr Nathan Cofnas was a research associate at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and a Leverhulme early career fellow. He wrote a blog post in February 2024 in which he advocated for “race realism” and claimed that it is a “scientific fact” that certain racial groups, including black people, are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent to the point that “In a meritocracy… [b]lacks would disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment”. As a result of the blog post, he lost his position at Emmanuel College, and was placed under a separate investigation by the university’s disciplinary body.

To state the obvious, Cofnas’s view are shocking and offensive to many. But AFFS is a free speech campaign, so we never judge views which are under attack. Our focus is: is the speech lawful and, if so, how to defend it.

AFFS has found that the chances of preventing universities from punishing staff for exercising their freedom of speech are much greater if we respond before consequences have been suffered: once an institution has taken irrevocable action, it battens down the hatches. We have therefore developed a form of “rapid reaction” letter, which we can use as a basis for writing to warn universities of their legal risks within two hours of hearing of threats to an individual’s free speech. The case of Nathan Cofnas was the first time we had used the template. See our letter here.

Cambridge has on the 2nd October 2025, cleared Cofnas of all the charges against him. Cofnas’ blog post is a good example of the extreme end of lawful speech, and was therefore an important test case for how Cambridge and other universities will respond to the coming into force of HEFSA. His acquittal is a significant (if uncomfortable) success for free speech protection, to which we believe AFFS contributed. Other free speech friendly organisations, including the Free Speech Union, also put pressure on the university not to punish Cofnas. We believe that AFFS’ contribution was to force the university to pause, thereby helping to ensure that the university sought specialist legal advice, and concluded, correctly, that it had a duty not to punish Cofnas for his lawful expression of views – irrespective of widespread offence or opposition.

(01.10.25)  New and updated BFSP statements

We wrote earlier this year about our work as a “free speech arms manufacturer”, creating documents which set out universities’ and other organisations’ legal obligations to protect free speech. These documents (“statements”) can be used by friends of free speech to help compel universities and other organisations to comply with the law, and are all available on BFSP’s website: <https://bfsp.uk/universities-and-free-speech>.

Our work has proceeded at pace. The range of our published statements is rapidly expanding, and many of our statements have now been updated to reflect the coming into force of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 (“HEFSA ”) on 1st August 2025. Recently, we have published:

Statement of the new legal requirements for protecting free speech at English HEPs_. Our “Principal Statement”, now updated for the coming into force of HEFSA, and published as an exposure draft.​​

 

• Free Speech Codes: Compliance checklist_. HEFSA requires universities to issue a “free speech code of practice”, a document which will be the core of any university’s efforts to protect free speech. This checklist makes it easy to assess whether a university’s code is compliant.

 

• EDI considerations and inquiries in the recruitment and research approval process at English universities; Free speech compliance issues_. This document sets out the legal requirements on English universities not to discriminate against applicants (except in certain legally determined and highly limited circumstances) for jobs on the basis of their commitment or lack thereof to Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion. It was the tool which enabled AFFS’ campaign this year on university recruitment, and led to the publication in May of AFFS’ detailed Report on University Recruitment, which found widespread compliance failures. It has now been updated to be used in AFFS’ “Autumn Review” – the expanded second round of the campaign.

 

• EDI and similar courses, training and tests: Free speech requirement and risks for English universities_. This document sets out the legal requirements on English universities with respect to training for staff and students – an area of common non-compliance. It can be used now in individual cases of non-compliance, and may form the basis of future campaigns.

The coming into force of HEFSA is generally a fantastic development, and it has made our work producing and promulgating statements substantially more effective. HEFSA introduced some badly needed accountability for when universities break the law on freedom of speech (though one of the relevant mechanisms, the Office for Students Complaints Scheme, has not yet started operating). With greater accountability, AFFS’ warnings that universities are breaching their free speech obligations now have considerably more force.

We are also currently in the process of producing statements on:

Proportionality. A technical legal concept which can be abused to unlawfully restrict speech.

The Public Sector Equality Duty. A “process” duty under the Equality Act 2010, which concerns how officials make decisions. It is often misinterpreted in attempts to justify restrictions on lawful speech.

The specific legal requirements on universities in Wales and Scotland.

We are expanding our campaigns to Wales and Scotland, and creating specific statements of the (different) obligations of Welsh and Scottish universities which will underpin these campaigns.

These statements in production reflect the increasing momentum, and the successes, of the free speech movement to date. After the successful establishment of HEFSA, much of the legal battle to protect free speech is now advancing to more technical matters, and we are expanding our campaigns to cover (eventually) the whole of the UK.

(07.08.25) HEFSA 2023 Comes into Force: Strengthening Free Speech with Caveats

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 (HEFSA) officially came into force on 1 August 2025, bringing into effect revised duties on English universities to protect free speech, plus a new duty to promote it, and new duties on colleges to do likewise. Under the new law, universities and their constituent colleges will be legally required to actively secure lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom. Institutions must not only avoid silencing controversial views but also show they are proactively promoting free speech and maintaining robust codes of practice. There are detailed improvements, such as introducing protections for academic freedom and tightening of requirements for payment of security costs for meetings.

The government’s decision to exclude the statutory tort (which would have allowed individuals—students, academics, or speakers—to take universities to court for violating their free speech rights) and new requirements on students’ unions is disappointing but not surprising. Without this legal mechanism, enforcement rests solely with the new Office for Students (OfS) complaints process (the requirements for which are not yet in legal effect, although the Government is promising that this will happen), which will be a positive step but not as effective as legal right to redress through the courts and a missed opportunity to ensure increased accountability. Our friends at Committee for Academic Freedom have published a useful Overview of the law on freedom of speech and academic freedom.

Despite these disappointments, we regard this as a triumph for free speech compared to the position in late July last year after the Government suspended the coming into effect of the new Act pending review and possible repeal. This was largely brought about by pressure from free speech campaigns, including AFFS.

(23.07.25) Lord Chris Smith wins Cambridge Chancellorship election

Cambridge alumni have elected Lord Smith to the Chancellorship of Cambridge University. Lord Smith is considered by Alumni For Free Speech (“AFFS”) to be a supporter of free speech and academic freedom, so was a good candidate for those who care about free speech. See AFFS’ detailed report and recommendation here.

AFFS wrote in June to the ten candidates requesting information about their position on free speech. Based on the AFFS’ review and analysis of candidates’ responses, AFFS and The Free Speech Union recommended candidates for alumni to vote for in the Chancellorship election from a purely free speech perspective.

Most candidates actively engaged with AFFS’ questions or responded with more general statements. The campaign’s full statement contains an evaluation of these responses and scored candidates according to some fairly simple ratings.

Our report on the candidates gave Lord Smith a positive free speech rating, and said: “Lord Smith gave a thoughtful and generally positive set of answers to our questions, from the point of view of supporting free speech protection, which you can read here. He was, for instance, encouragingly positive about the need for institutional neutrality.

While there is much that is encouraging, a lack of appreciation of the depth and nature of the problems was evidenced in some replies.” AFFS is confident that Lord Smith cares about free speech, and will be a supporter ofit when issues arise. AFFS is therefore pleased with this result.
See our dedicated election page for information about this campaign, here: <https://affs.uk/voting-cambridge-chancellor-election>

(05.07.2025) Cambridge Chancellorship: AFFS and FSU recommend alumni to vote for free speech candidates

Cambridge alumni can use their vote in the upcoming election for the Chancellorship of Cambridge University to support candidates who stand for the protection of free speech, and thus demonstrate that free speech matters to alumni. We urge all Cambridge alumni to vote for a strong free speech candidate.

We wrote in June to the candidates requesting information about their position on free speech. Most, but not all, of the candidates responded. Based on AFFS’ review and analysis of candidates’ responses, the candidates among the apparent frontrunners for the Chancellorship who AFFS and The Free Speech Union jointly recommend to those who care about free speech are (in alphabetical order):
 

• Lord (John) Browneof Madingley

• Dr Mohammed El-Erian
  
  Other candidates who appear to be strongest free speech supporters and who appear to be the most suitable to support are (in alphabetical order):
   

• Dr Ayham Ammora

• Professor Wyn Evans

Effective use of transferable votes is likely to be critical. Whichever candidate alumni initially vote for, we also recommend that they ensure that their transferable vote goes at some stage to(ideally) both of Lord Browne and Dr El-Erian , or at least to one of them.

Please see our dedicated Voting in Cambridge Chancellor Election page for detailed information including our statement on the merits of the candidates from a few speech perspective.

Our detailed statement on this can be found here. This contains detailed information on our questions and each candidate’s responses, and an evaluation of the candidates’ apparent suitability from a purely free speech perspective. You may well find some responses very encouraging, and some a bit depressing.

(23.07.25) FS campaigns report Bristol failings regarding Steven Greer to the OfS

AFFS have joined several other free speech campaign groups in writing formally to the Office for Students (OfS) to ask them to open an investigation into governance and management failures at the University of Bristol regarding Steven Greer and the “Brisoc Scandal”. Please see Press Release here.
The University treated Steven shamefully, in failing to protect and support him after he faced unfounded allegations of insulting Islam and the Koran, despite being completely exonerated after a five-month inquiry.

AFFS have been supporting Steven for some years: we wrote a detailed letter to Bristol in June 2023 highlighting their free speech protection and governance failures.

(27.05.25) University recruitment: EDI requirements causing free speech compliance failures

AFFS has conducted, with the help of the Committee for Academic Freedom and other free speech organisations, a detailed review of various universities about the extent to which universities have requirements to give evidence of support for EDI in their recruitment processes, or impose duties on their employees to promote or support EDI, as this is a free speech problem and quickly gives rise to severe compliance failures.

AFFS has been focused on the 21 English and Welsh members of the Russell Group to clarify the extent of this issue; and raising our concerns with universities which appear to be acting unlawfully in this regard.

Shockingly, across these leading universities:
 

• Eight required candidates to provide evidence of their commitment to “EDI” as part of the recruitment process – these are “EDI Support Evidence ” failures.

• Eleven (including five of the above) imposed duties on candidates to support or promote EDI – these are “EDI Support Duties ” failures.

• Onlyseven appear to be compliant, based on publicly-available information.

AFFS also conducted less detailed research into English and Welsh members of Universities UK, and has found that, out of the total of 108 universities reviewed:
 

• Over 45% are highly likely to be acting non-compliantly.

• A further 15 are seriously at risk of non-compliance, which, if this were indeed the case, would take the non-compliant total up to over 59%.

This level of non-compliance is not only a serious concern for academic freedom, and free speech generally, in the UK: it leads to serious financial and reputational harm for universities. Recent high-profile examples of the adverse implications of free speech failures – particularly at the Open University and Sussex University – are clear examples of the dangers of getting this wrong.

See our report here, for further detailed information about this project and our findings.

Why is EDI a problem for free speech? Why this project?
 

• Free speech non-compliance can have serious consequences for a university’s finances and reputation, as well as dampening free speech in these institutions.

• EDI has become a wide-ranging, ill-defined concept which includes viewpoints and agendas which can be controversial, and are not required by law to be enforced.

• Getting to the focus of this report, some universities require job applicants to evidence their “commitment” to EDI and/or mark candidates down who do not demonstrate sufficient levels of support, or impose duties on their employees about promoting and/or supporting EDI which go beyond what is legally justifiable. As a result, candidates and employees are discouraged from expressing their viewpoints on often controversial matters. This is highly likely to be legally and regulatorily non-compliant.

• Just 40% of universities reviewed by AFFS were found to be clearly fully compliant – from publicly-available information – meaning that the majority of universities may face serious financial and reputational penalties.

• All universities need to review their policies and processes as soon as possible, likely with the help of specialist external help, to ensure that they are compliant.

See our report for detail on why EDI is a problem for free speech, what the legal and regulatory issues are, and why we have focused on EDI support requirements in recruitment.

Our findings

Our findings are set out in detail in our report, but a brief summary (numbers of universities) is as follows.
Interpretation:
_Double Fail_ : universities that required candidates to submit EDI Support Evidence and comply with EDI Support Duties
_Evidence Fail_ : universities that required applicants to submit EDI Support Evidence
_Duties Fail_ : universities that required employees to comply with EDI Support Duties
_Compliant_ : universities with fully compliant policies and advertisements (as far as AFFS was able to see)
_At risk_ : universities that required employees to comply with university-specific EDI compliance duties: these may themselves be non-compliant with free speech regulations

(02.05.25) BFSP Statement on free speech governance failures at Sussex University

We wrote to all universities and the Office for Students (OfS), impressing on them the need to review and revise their policies to ensure they did not restrict lawful speech, and the likely penalties if they failed to do so. We attach a statement by our associated campaign, Best Free Speech Practice, about the recent fines by the OfS on Sussex for their governance failures in connection with the Kathleen Stock case.

(02.05.25) HEFSA core provisions coming into effect on1 August

Regulations have at last been published for the commencement of core elements of The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 ( HEFSA), with effect from 1 August 2025.

This brings into effect the revised duties on universities to protect free speech, plus a new duty to promote it. It also brings in new, similar, duties on colleges and other “constituent institutions”. This will revolutionise their duties and risks, so should force them to get more serious about free speech. The intended free speech complaints scheme will be revised and introduced later on.

The great disappointment is that the Secretary of State for Education saw fit not to bring the remaining elements of HEFSA, including a right to bring claims for free speech failures and new requirements on students’ unions.

Despite these disappointments, we regard this as a triumph compared to the position in late July last year. This is entirely due to pressure from campaigners and widespread public disgust. Ms Phillipson is said to have been taken aback by the anger expressed. To quote our friends at Academics for Academic Freedom:

“This positive development is due to the collaborative public, and private, work of the free speech organisations – Academics For Academics Freedom (AFAF), Alumni For Free Speech (AFFS), the Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF), the Free Speech Union (FSU), the London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom (LUCAF) and Student Academics For Academic Freedom (SAFAF).”

(22.04.2025) Free Speech campaigners write to urge that universities adopt institutional neutrality

AFFS has co-authored an open letter by various university-focused free speech organisations urging universities to adopt institutional neutrality as a priority.
AFFS worked with Abhishek Saha of London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom to create the letter. Other signatories included Academics For Academic Freedom, Committee For Academic Freedom, Student Academics For Academic Freedom and other individual advocates.

The campaigns have written to the Vice-Chancellors and other senior officers of English, Welsh and Scottish universities. A copy was sent to the Office for Students. We have pointed out that as well as something that is vital in principle for the quality of research, learning, exploration, and debate at our universities, this is an effective legal necessity if universities are to avoid in the future the risk of the cost and reputational damage of this sort which has arisen in recent years, of which the following are two key examples.
 

• The discrimination against and harassment of Professor Jo Phoenix at the Open University for her viewpoints, which led to a reputedly huge settlement of a claim under the Equality Act, profound reputational damage. The subsequent Dandridge Review into the failings at the Open University recommended that institutional neutrality was necessary.

 

• The cost and reputational disaster suffered by the University of Sussex in relation to its failures to protect Kathleen Stock from attack. This is culminated in huge fines from the OfS for related governance failures. Had Sussex remained neutral on what is a contested subject, it would have been much more likely to have ensured these problems.

It should be blindingly obvious: if you take sides in a contested debate, you automatically set yourself against the other side, and immediately raise your risks of disadvantaging or harassing people because of their viewpoints. The event that led to Sussex’s £580,000 fine was uncritically using policy wording sourced from external activists, which turned out to be unlawful. It was laughably inappropriate, and only people who are self-blinded by side-taking won’t have seen this.

Only two UK universities currently have proper statements of neutrality. Over 100 do in the USA, including Harvard. AFFS will be pursuing this over the coming years.

(14.04.2025) Sussex hit with huge fines for free speech governance failures

The Office for Students (OfS) has fined the University of Sussex £585,000 for freedom of speech and academic freedom failures. This is an excellent and highly significant development for freedom of speech protection.

Kathleen Stock was a philosophy professor at the University. She holds “gender critical” beliefs: that biological sex is real, important, and immutable. In 2021, Stock was subject to an organised campaign by students and staff, who demanded that the university sack her for gender critical beliefs. She received numerous death threats and was advised by the police that she might need security to go into the university. Eventually, she resigned.
The OfS can investigate whether universities are in breach of their “conditions of registration”: conditions which universities must meet in order to retain their degree awarding powers.

The OfS investigated Sussex and found it had breached two conditions. Sussex breached:
 

• A condition (E1) which requires the governing documents of universities to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom. This was because its “Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement” required academics to “positively represent trans people and trans lives”, and contained prohibitions against (undefined) “stereotypical assumptions about trans people” and “transphobic propaganda”.

 

• A condition (E2) which relates to governance procedures, because subsidiary university bodies approved the “Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement”, along with a number of other important policy documents, despite not having the delegated authority to do so.
   

See the OfS’ report here

Vice Chancellor Professor Roseneil has stated “the behaviour of the OfS sets a dangerous precedent and constitutes serious regulatory overreach in service of a politically motivated inquiry”. Sussex have begun judicial review proceedings.

We wrote to Sussex in February 2023 about compliance issues we raised on this subject. Sussex refused to engage seriously. See more here

The OfS’ report and fine are a major development in free speech protection with significance far beyond the University of Sussex.
 

• OfS has got serious: First, and most importantly, the report demonstrates that the OfS is now serious about free speech protection and will take action against universities which fail to protect free speech. The fine of £585,000 is the largest the OfS has ever issued.
   

• Universities need to review their policies: Second, multiple other universities have policies which are, in the offending sections, identical or extremely similar to Sussex’s. The Committee for Academic Freedom has identified 29 universities with such policies, all of which now need to review their policies to ensure that they comply with their regulatory obligations and do not restrict lawful speech. This OfS report has to precipitate a sector wide review of their policies, beyond trans matters, to ensure free speech compliance.
   

• Dangers of taking policies from external providers: Third, Sussex created its “Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement” by copying verbatim the offending passages from a template provided by the education charity Advance HE. The case of Sussex is therefore a powerful argument that universities must not outsource their governing policies, which determine the culture of a university and how it is run, to external organisations such as Advance HE and Stonewall. They have to take responsibility for their own compliance.

We will shortly be writing to all universities, impressing on them the need to review and revise their policies to ensure they do not restrict lawful speech, and the likely penalties if they fail to do so.

(14.04.2025) Revised BFSP statements in preparation for HEFSA coming into effect   

Now the mist has cleared, at least partially, on what the legal landscape is going to look like, and we now know that much of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 is going to be brought into effect, BFSP is getting stuck into a huge amount of detailed work revising its statements about the legal requirements, so they are ready for the next academic year. There is a great deal to do, but these are proving to be valuable weapons, and pretty well unique. We now regard ourselves as free speech arms manufacturers.

A timing issue we have is that the OfS will produce revised guidance fairly soon, which will no doubt change our statements yet again. So we will have a big rush as summer approaches. BFSP toils at a rather dark and dingy free speech coalface.
Two recent statements are as follows.
 

• Requirements for EDI Compliance and Statements in the Context of Job and Funding Applications._ This explores the various ways in which imposing requirements and criteria related to support for EDI agendas can be unlawful under requirements relating to free speech protection.
   

• The Risks under Free Speech Laws of EDI training._[](<https://bfsp.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/BFSP-re-EDI-training-and-free-speech-21.3.25.pdf>)

(27.02.25) Oxford highly likely to be acting unlawfully in requiring diversity support statements in job applications: they ignore AFFS’ warning: AFFS demands an external review of why they made that decision

AFFS wrote informally to Oxford University in January, highlighting free speech legal and governance issues with its requiring commitments to contested agendas and ideological positions in job advertisements and applications. The opportunity to review and correct their policies was rebuffed with a reply which managed to appear simultaneously disingenuous, complacent and potentially negligent.

This indicates a possible systemic problem with its governance and compliance, in that it appears to have knowingly disregarded clear evidence of unlawfulness, we have to assume because it is so committed to enforcing EDI agendas that it cannot conceive that this can be not just inappropriate, but actually unlawful – even though those agendas include values and agendas dissent from which is, amongst other things, protected under the Equality Act. The University appears to be deliberately prioritising commitment to EDI over free speech rights.
AFFS has now written formally to Oxford, setting out the relevant requirements, the ways in which they are acting unlawfully, making recommendations for action and ending by calling for Oxford to review its management and governance structures and processes in this regard.
Oxford appears to have serious questions to answer. These include:
 

• What work did it do to assess the correctness (or otherwise) of the matters raised in AFFS’ initial letter? Did it consult specialist lawyers about it? What advice was received? Was it implemented?

• Who within the University’s management was involved in any such assessment? Did they include the appropriate people, including an advocate for free speech?

• Who was responsible for the decision to respond to AFFS’ earlier letter as the University did?
   

Given the University’s performance so far, a reasonable person would have little faith that it would itself perform this review appropriately. AFFS has therefore called for the University to appoint an independent expert to review its decisions and processes and report on whether mistakes or defaults occurred, and who was responsible for them, to including include the questions we raise above; and to make recommendations for improvements in the University’s management, governance, processes and policies.
AFFS will be reporting Oxford’s failures to the Office for Students.

(28.01.25) The Dandridge Review re the Open University/Jo Phoenix: what universities need to know – and do     

The Dandridge Review (the “Review ”) is a report, published in September 2024, of an independent investigation by Dame Nicola Dandridge which was commissioned by the Open University (“OU ”) following its failure to manage disputes and prevent unlawful harassment of Professor Jo Phoenix over her views.

_BFSP has reported on the Review in detail –_see this here.

The potential usefulness of the Review was restricted by Dame Nicola’s terms of reference. These appeared to assume a need to “balance” legal rights to free speech with wider (non-legally mandated) equality and other agendas. This is the wrong focus as, in what many see as at times a legal and regulatory minefield, the focus has to remain on complying with legal obligations and negotiating a path through those obligations where they potentially conflict.
The terms of reference imposed on Dame Nicola were, therefore, highly inappropriate and inevitably caused some real weaknesses in the Review and its findings. They meant that, while the Review contains worthwhile statements about what universities and other higher education providers need to do to avoid legal and regulatory failures, there are some significant omissions and unhelpful obscurity and vagueness.
_Despite the limitations of its terms of reference, and its overconcentration on the disputes between trans rights and gender critical feminism, the Review’s findings, with respect to what universities must do to protect free speech and avoid legal and compliance failures, are, generally, applicable to all universities.

Key Implications of the Review; requirements for action
 

• There was a culture of conformity/consensus at the OU, and fear amongst dissidents from orthodoxies.

• EDI was a source of freedom of speech problems.

• Requirements re standards of behaviour were poor and needed a lot of improvement. These to extend to clear guidelines about online working and online behaviour; and when it is not appropriate to express personal views at work, and that staff should be willing to work with colleagues whose views they disagree with. The vital need for clear, consistent, lawful and effective policies more generally.

• Universities need to adopt institutional neutrality.

• Much more early, active and effective management of disputes was needed.

• Dedicated, effective free speech promotion and protection structures, with separation from EDI.
   

Important matters omitted, understated or insufficiently clear

* The OU needed to ensure that its policies and requirements generally – and in respect of EDI agendas in particular – are structured so as not to inappropriately restrict free speech. Have adequate training and induction.

• Effective intervention and enforcement of behaviour requirements is vital when free speech problems arise.

• Effective systems for reporting and managing disputes and free speech complaints were needed.

• The need for a free speech officer to lead the free speech protection structures.

• The need to reduce common complaints cultures, and manage complaints connected with viewpoints effectively.

• Review and if necessary terminate relationships with external campaign organisations which given rise to free speech problems.

_See BFSP’s detailed report on the Review._

(27.01.25) Positive and decisive action from Newcastle University   

We wrote to senior officers at Newcastle University on 19th December regarding potential legal and regulatory failures to protect free speech. See our letter here.
Helen Adamson, PGR Co-Director in the School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, had been the victim of a pile-on after being filmed participating in a political “Unite the Country” rally organised by Tommy Robinson in October 2024. This led to an open letter signed by over 100 students, staff, and alumni calling for the university to take action.
However, it turned out that Newcastle had already taken decisive action. Helen told AFFS that the university has been very supportive of her right to freedom of speech and that the Vice Chancellor provided reassurance to the extent that she has commended the University for it.

(17.01.25) Government U-turn on HEFSA: Victory for free speech, though with some disappointments 

Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson has announced in Parliament that the government will implement the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 (HEFSA), though with some important elements removed.

HEFSA was designed to expand the existing regime for free speech protection, and, crucially, to create an enforcement mechanism. As originally passed in Parliament, HEFSA would have created a free speech complaints scheme, run by the Office for Students (OfS). When universities failed to uphold free speech, academics would be able to bring a complaint to the OfS. Behind this was a new “statutory tort”, which would allow a censored academic (for instance) to claim in court for resulting losses, which would have been a cheaper and easier process than judicial review. This accountability would have forced universities to protect free speech better.

AFFS has been closely involved in a multi-faceted campaign to save HEFSA. We have written several times to the Department for Education (DfE), including joining other free speech groups in writing an open letter in support of the Act which gained over 600 signatures from leading academics, including seven Nobel laureates, and more recently about a study which indicated that universities had actually been improving their free speech protections in preparation for HEFSA. We have also also been involved in extensive consultation with the DfE.

As a result OF WIDESPREAD CRITICISM, WHICH IS NOT GOING AWAY, the Government has now announced that it will implement most of HEFSA – although it lacks the political courage to admit that suspension was a mistake.
Real questions remain about the Government’s commitment to free speech – and Bridget Phillipson’s competence. The suspension seemed like an ideological lurch: a needless, self-inflicted destruction of her own political capital. Labour have managed to take ownership of university free speech problems, and will be blamed for every failure that occurs between now and the next election. While the partial implementation of HEFSA will take some of the sting out of this, this negative perception will remain at a time when the middle ground has become sensitised to the issue.

The new free speech complaints scheme will still operate, but the great disappointment is that the statutory tort will not be enacted. In addition, HEFSA as in force will not apply to Students’ Unions, as it would originally have done. These changes mean that the OfS and academics will remain unable to take (or to afford to take) universities to court for free speech failures. However, the OfS will be able to issue recommendations to universities (which can include to pay compensation), and can take regulatory enforcement action in extreme cases.

While the failure to implement in full is disappointing, given that, in July, the Act faced a bleak future, this is a significant victory for the free speech movement in forcing the Government to make what has been widely described as a U-turn. Despite these disappointments, we expect free speech protection in English universities to improve substantially. We give this outcome a hearty two cheers.
(08.01.25) HEFSA: awkward UUK study shows Act was pushing free speech improvements even before it came into effect, compelling arguments to bring Act into effect asap

We co-ordinated various free speech campaigns in writing to the Education Ministers to point out something rather remarkable: UUK, who have opposed the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act (HEFSA), have produced a study which (we assume inadvertently) shows that universities were being pushed by the approach of HEFSA into making significant improvements in their FS protection requirements and systems.


The announcement last year by the Secretary of State on 26 July that she was stopping further commencement of HEFSA has not only stalled such improvements that have happened, but has subsequently led to a significant deterioration in the free speech climate in ways that were foreseeable. Following the announcement, many universities have stopped ongoing work on freedom of speech and postponed the formation of internal complaints processes. For example, the Imperial College working group on free speech was in the process of developing initiatives for the Promote Duty, but following the decision to stop commencement of further provisions of HEFSA the working group was immediately suspended, which has changed the free speech atmosphere at Imperial for the worse. Similarly, the UCL working group on free speech was in the process of developing an updated code of practice for free speech to make it HEFSA-compliant and produce related complaints processes, but it stopped all work on free speech and academic freedom on the same morning as the Secretary of State’s announcement.


This is in equal measures devastating for any remaining arguments for not bringing in HEFSA, and hilarious in that this smoking gun has been produced by an organisation which is reputed to have opposed HEFSA. We wonder if they’d thought this through. The Times Higher Education recently highlighted our letter and findings. You can read it here.

(10.12.24)The fate of HEFSA: letter to The Times and what you can do 

We joined several other free speech campaigns and individuals in writing to The Times as a result of rumours that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act may be watered down from what was enacted, in particular by removing the statutory tort provision which would have imposed vital accountability.

The Government has yet to make a decision about this vital piece of legislation, and has apparently been disconcerted by the extent of the anger about their constitutional vandalism in suspending it. They have managed to take “ownership” of free speech as a problem, and the general public are noticing. All campaigners are working to maximise pressure for a good outcome. We therefore encourage everyone who cares about free speech to do something to register their objections, for instance writing to their MP or asking any contacts within Labour to pass on their anger to the education ministers and/or No.10.
The recent letter was as follows.

“Sir, we are concerned by reports that the government may remove the statutory tort provision from the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act (“University free speech law set to be watered down”, Dec 6). A law without a judicial enforcement mechanism is a toothless law.

The Act does establish a scheme for the OfS to review free speech complaints but makes clear that this scheme “may not authorise the OfS to require anyone to do or not do anything.” So without the legal backstop of the tort, universities may simply ignore OfS recommendations. Moreover, the tort guards against the risk of institutional capture of the OfS.

Accountability is everything. Creating liability risk for universities that ignore their free speech duties is the most effective way to ensure that free speech is always factored in, substantively, to decision making. We urge the government to implement this vital Act in full.
Abhishek Saha , founder member of the London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom and professor of mathematics at QMUL;Dennis Hayes , director of Academics For Academic Freedom and emeritus professor of education at the University of Derby; William Mackesy, director of Alumni for Free Speech; Edward Skidelsky, director of the Committee for Academic Freedom and lecturer in philosophy at the University of Exeter; Heather McKee , convenor of Student Academics For Academic Freedom and masters student at the University of Glasgow; Jo Phoenix , professor of criminology at the University of Reading and advisory group member of Sex Matters; Sir Partha Dasgupta , Frank Ramsey professor emeritus of economics at the University of Cambridge.”

(29.11.24) A win for free speech? William Hague, recommended free speech candidate, wins Oxford Chancellorship election   

Oxford alumni have voted to elect William (Lord) Hague to the Chancellorship of Oxford University.

Lord Hague was jointly recommended by AFFS and the Free Speech Union as being the “leading” candidate for those who care about the protection of free speech. See our recommendation here and Campaign News of 24.10.24.

AFFS wrote in late September to the then-known candidates requesting information about their position on free speech. AFFS and the FSU included AFFS’ questions a, and its review of the answers received, with our recommendation.

AFFS are not going to claim that free speech was definitely a decisive issue, but we are confident that a lot of alumni care about free speech and that it was a factor in the result. It is interesting that, broadly, those who appeared to be less favourable to free speech arguably performed less well in the final rounds of voting.
See detailed information about this campaign here: <https://affs.uk/voting-oxford-chancellor-election>

(15.11.24) How universities teach students to shame: Alexander Rogers’s death is a tragic example     

The below is an extract from a longer article by Kathleen Stock published in Unherd See full article here This is the sort of thing we are fighting against. Although this poor young man’s case was itself not an obvious direct free speech issue, probably more one of nasty and self-righteous people (a toxic combination) being empowered by the internet.

Organising and joining in a campaign of ostracism is clear bullying. Universities have rules against this. Why aren’t they enforcing them, and training people that they will be in big trouble if they don’t comply? There is a deep integrity issue here and universities are regularly failing it.
AFFS are on universities’ case about free speech failures, and allowing bullying of this sort will be a focus. Things will get better,
——————————–
How universities teach students to shame: Alexander Rogers’s death is a tragic example

Oxford colleges are suffocating places, stuffed to the gunnels with competitive and perfectionistic types, precocious in some ways and very immature in others. Everybody knows everybody else, adolescent hysteria and gossip can travel fast, and an atmosphere dominated by a few loud personalities can feel extremely claustrophobic. In this respect, smaller colleges are probably the worst.
The 20-year-old Oxford student Alexander Rogers killed himself within a week of being shamed by university friends. According to the coroner, he had become the subject of rumours after a post-pub tryst. While no formal allegation was registered, the woman involved told mutuals afterwards that it had left her feeling “uncomfortable”. An ex-boyfriend of hers was then involved in a physical confrontation with Rogers, while others told him he had “messed up” and they would be distancing themselves accordingly. Shortly afterwards, the third-year material sciences student wrote a goodbye note describing an “unintentional but unforgiveable” act.
The coroner in this case (at least) cited an independent review commissioned by Corpus Christi — the college attended by Rogers — describing a “normalised” culture in which “students could rush to judgment without knowledge of all the facts, could shun those accused, and a ‘pile-on’ might occur where a group would form a negative view about another individual”. According to the report, “this culture was not limited to Oxford University — it is an issue for the higher education sector as a whole.”
This week, the papers have shared first-hand accounts from Oxbridge students, bearing witness to painful struggle sessions and acts of shunning for those suspected of harbouring morally injurious attitudes. And this fits with what others have told me.
It’s tempting to rail against the fanaticism of aspiring young witchfinders, and the cowardice of those who fall in silently behind them, especially when the consequences are as grave as in Alexander Rogers’ case. It seems clear that the whispering and pointing now rife among students would not be so popular had influential adults not sanctioned it. In many ways, here too young people are just doing what they think they are supposed to, by diligently copying other people.
See full article here LINK

(05.11.24) Possible mistreatment of James Tooley, and the risk to the University of Buckingham’s reputation

We have written to Mr Mark Qualter (Chair of the Council) and other members of the Council regarding the mistreatment of Professor James Tooley. Tooley was suspended following allegations from his estranged wife; the only currently known allegation, that he kept an unlicenced firearm at home, had apparently turned out to be untrue before his suspension was even announced.

The precipitate-seeming actions of the Council, and the motivations for his suspension and its announcement, have been the subject of intense public speculation. The University has since announced an independent investigation into the issue, although whether the behaviour of the University is part of its scope is unclear: it should be.
We have highlighted several questions regarding potential legal and regulatory issues facing the University and members of its Council depending on the facts.

(24.10.24) Oxford Chancellorship: AFFS and FSU recommend alumni to vote for free speech candidates

Oxford alumni can use their vote in the upcoming election for the Chancellorship of Oxford University to support candidates who stand for the protection of free speech, and thus demonstrate that free speech matters to alumni. We urge all Oxford alumni to vote for a strong free speech candidate.
We wrote earlier this month to the then-known candidates requesting information about their position on free speech, and many candidates responded. Based on AFFS’ review and analysis of candidates’ responses, the candidate among the apparent frontrunners for the Chancellorship who AFFS and The Free Speech Union (“FSU”) jointly recommend to those who care about free speech was:

• William (Lord)Hague

Other candidates who appeared (out of a strong-looking field) to be the most suitable _at that time_ to support were:

• Revd Matthew Firth

• Professor Simon Kay

• Maxim Parr-Reid

If alumni vote for any of these other candidates, AFFS and the FSU also recommend that they ensure that their transferable vote goes to William Hague.
Please see our dedicated Voting in Oxford Chancellor Election page for detailed information, including our statement on the merits of the candidates from a free speech perspective. (We have updated our original statement to reflect further information and responses that we have received since its first issue.)

(08.08.24) Academics: an open letter to sign   

We recommend that those of our members who are or have been academics sign this open letter to Bridget Phillipson organised by the excellent Committee for Academic Freedom (here). It is worth a read in any event. The more signatories, the greater its impact.

(06.08.24) FSU legal action: funding needed

The Free Speech Union (FSU) is planning to fight the government on this and AFFS strongly supports them in this endeavour. Inevitably this will require funding and if you are a member of the FSU you will have received an email from them about it.

Below are some excerpts from their most recent email. Note the 20% figure.
 

• “The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was a significant measure by the Conservatives to protect free speech in the past 14 years. This legislation, heavily advocated for by the Free Speech Union, aimed to ensure English universities upheld and promoted freedom of speech on campus, with mechanisms in place to enforce this duty, including a new statutory tort._

• Approximately 20% of the over 2,400 cases we’ve supported in the last four years involved university students or academics. We believe that the Act would have significantly strengthened their positions. For instance, it would have been more challenging for trans rights activists to no-platform Selina Todd, the Oxford Professor of Modern History, had this Act been in effect._

• With Rishi Sunak calling an election before the Act’s implementation, the current Government has taken the opportunity to obstruct it._

• At the Free Speech Union, we are exploring various legal avenues and, without revealing too much, Bridget Phillipson will be hearing from us soon. We are committed to opposing this reckless decision but need to raise substantial funds to support our efforts.”
   

The FSU are planning to fight it with all they have got and have started the process – see their first pre-action protocol letter to the Government here . However, this is going to require funding, and they are currently raising money to spearhead this excellent cause. Please see full details here.
It is only by banding together as concerned and active citizens that we can fight against this act of legal vandalism and so we encourage you to donate to the FSU fighting fund here. And to join the FSU if you are not already members.

(01.08.24) Call to arms: fight Labour’s plans to repeal HEFOSA   

Freedoms typically get slowly eroded, bit by bit, which is why we all need to remain vigilant and constantly push back, but sometimes they get eroded very quickly. Bridget Phillipson’s announcement, as Secretary of State for Education, on Friday 26th July that she had revoked the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was a prime example of fast erosion, and by stealth at that.

In essence she decided to go against the intentions of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, who had passed the Act in the last parliament, and to do so in a way deliberately designed to minimise scrutiny. How? She quietly released the news on a Friday, a classic ploy used by politicians to release information that they don’t want scrutinised too closely.You can read her announcement here: <https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-07-26/hcws26> And AFFS’ earlier letter to you hereEven if it’s permissible in law, it shows utter contempt for our key democratic institutions. Consider the fact that this free speech law had been subject to the scrutiny of both chambers of the Houses of Parliament after extensive debate and had received Royal Assent on 11th May 2023.Bear in mind too that there was nothing about this plan in the Labour Party manifesto. In fact if you search for free speech in their manifesto it gets mentioned just once:“We will ensure members of devolved legislatures have the same free speech protections enjoyed by MPs at Westminster, so elected representatives can hold power to account.”Yes, but what about the rest of us? What about academics. What about students? What about speakers?

(29.07.24) Labour’s revocation of the main provisions of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023: AFFS’ thoughts
   
Bridget Phillipson, the new Secretary of State for Education, revoked the coming into effect of the main provisions of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 (HEFOSA) on 26 July. The HEFOSA was due to bring in important new protections for free speech at English universities on 1 August.
This is a highly unusual procedural move, and an act of legislative vandalism in relation to a statute which was carefully considered and amended in its progress through Parliament, in part to meet concerns raised by and to reflect input from the higher education sector. There was nothing about this in Labour’s recent manifesto, so the Government has no mandate for revoking the HEFOSA. It is also constitutionally wrong for a minister to overrule the will of Parliament without even informing the Commons in person. We would very much hope that a senior lawyer (and a human rights specialist) like Sir Keir Starmer would see why this step is wrong. Which makes one wonder if he was informed. This looks like an inexperienced minister going on a frolic of her own.

This is a reputational own goal, and perhaps Labour’s first big unforced error, made in haste and with a display of arrogance and disregard for parliament. To appear to be not a friend of free debate, or indeed human rights, so early in your term as Education Secretary, of all things, is extraordinary.
What is interesting, though, is that the existing duties to protect free speech under the Education Act are not much less onerous than much of the contents of HEFOSA, a point Ms Phillipson acknowledges. What is more, the requirements under the Equality Act to prevent discrimination and harassment against people with protected viewpoints remain in full force. Universities will continue under their regulatory conditions of registration to be required to work to protect free speech. Best Free Speech Practice – <https://bfsp.uk/universities-and-free-speech> – has prepared a statement (here) indicating the legal origins of the requirements in practice (as identified by BFSP) to protect free speech at English universities. This shows that the effective repeal of much of HEFOSA actually has little effect on what universities are required to do in practice.

The main effect for free speech of this revocation is that the new OfS complaints scheme and right to sue for losses caused by free speech failures will not come into effect. Less careful universities may kid themselves that they are back to being unaccountable. This is, though, emphatically not the case. Better universities, which are already a long way down the road with preparations for the new regime, will, we hope, continue with the greater urgency they have shown for free speech protection in recent months.

So, in this context, why has Ms Phillipson actually taken this peculiar step? It is not going to contribute to her stated aim to “ _ensure a stable future for higher education, with strong regulation that means students can thrive”_ if important protections for dissenters are being removed. We feel sorry for the feminists and other dissidents from enforced orthodoxy. If this move was for a delay to allow universities and students’ unions more time to prepare, that would have had some coherence: but she surely would have made this clearer, and implemented it less destructively. Her action can therefore only be construed as hostile to free speech. Has a proper risk analysis been done? Or has she capitulated to the demands of the universities’ lobbyists without sufficient consideration of the evidence about the problems at our universities which caused the HEFOSA to be required in the first place?
Ms Phillipson has adopted with approval _Fit for the Future_ , an independent review of the Office for Students, led by Sir David Behan and published in July 2024, referring specifically to the key priorities of ensuring quality and regulating in the interests of students. How will this be achieved if legitimate debate is prevented, and academics and students cowed into silence, as has been shown is happening. This is not credible.
Where was Jacqui Smith, the new Universities Minister? One would have hoped that a more experienced head might have counselled against such a step. Was she even consulted?
There have been a number of excellent articles on this. For those interested, we point you to:
Julius Grower’s at: <https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/30/bridget-phillipson-is-wrong-about-the-higher-education-freedom-of-speech-act/>
We would also urge you to increase the pressure and write to your MP about this action. If to a Labour MP, protesting against this unconstitutional, arrogant, quite possibly unlawful vandalism, and urging your MP to act to stop further political harm by pushing colleagues to reverse this decision as soon as possible. If to any other party, urge them to protest, and to work for their party to take up the issue vigorously.
We know you will be busy, so, if it would help, please do copy whatever bits from our recent AFFS statement here into the main text of the letter.
You can also use the Free Speech Union letter template here
New Freedom of Speech Codes of Practice
(25.07.24) Universities have been introducing new codes of practice in the run-up to 1 August, when the law changes.
BFSP has produced a compliance checklist for assessing how good these new codes are. Find it here.
We have looked at two codes.
Oxford
Oxford’s new code (<https://compliance.admin.ox.ac.uk/freedom-of-speech/code-of-practice> ) is good – solid competent stuff, and it looks like they mean business, although the proof will be in the implementation. We have marked them against BFSP’s checklist: see the results here. Some missing desiderata – nothing on institutional neutrality, for instance. A/B: a bit more will take them to the pure alpha we know they are capable of.
Imperial