(14.07.26) 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Universities which require applicants to roles to provide evidence of their support of EDI, or impose duties on their employees to promote or support EDI, are highly likely to be in breach of their obligations to protect free speech.
 
In recent years, free speech campaigners have encountered numerous examples of universities requiring applicants for jobs to provide evidence of their support for EDI (or get marked down on selection), or imposing duties on employees to promote or support EDI. “EDI” has become a broad, amorphous concept that includes contested viewpoints and agendas which are not required to be enforced by the Equality Act or other laws.
 
As a result, candidates and employees who do not agree with such viewpoints, as is their legal right, are discriminated against or discouraged from expressing their viewpoints. This is highly likely to be legally and regulatorily non-compliant.
 
AFFS has been, with the help of the Committee for Academic Freedom and other free speech organisations, conducting research into the 21 English and Welsh members of the Russell Group to clarify the extent of this issue, and applying pressure to 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.

• Only seven 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. Failure to comply with free speech obligations must be taken more seriously, both for the health of public debate, but also as a serious compliance issue for university administrations.
 
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 their 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.

• As found by the Dandridge Review into the free speech failures at the Open University, EDI can cause free speech problems, and universities have failed to ensure that their obligations towards freedom of speech are balanced with their EDI agendas. This quickly leads to contraventions of legal and regulatory duties to protect free speech.

• 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, and why we have focused on EDI support requirements in recruitment.
 
Relevant legal and regulatory requirements
 
Our report explains in detail how requiring evidence of support for EDI, discriminating between candidates depending on the level of that support, and imposing requirements on employees to promote or support EDI, are highly likely to be contrary to universities’ legal and regulatory obligations.
 
Our findings
These 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

 
What universities need to do
We hope this report will be seen as valuable in helping universities avoid future compliance failures in this area. Our report includes a long list of actions for universities to take, and AFFS is keen to support university management about how best to ensure free speech at their institution.
See our report here, for further detailed information about this project and our findings.