Universities told to drop social justice rules for staff
Universities have been told to scrap rules that push 'social justice' politics.
New guidance has been issued by the Office for Students, a higher education regulator, to ensure free speech is protected on campus.
The guidance instructs universities to scrap policies controversially used to enforce what critics have branded 'ideological conformity'.
This is to ensure they do not breach the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which is set to come into law in August after being proposed under the Tories.
Guidance states that to avoid falling foul of the Act, people should not be compelled to sign up to university codes of conduct that insist on promoting 'social justice' or other political values.
The University of Newcastle code of conduct states that it will maintain a 'longstanding commitment… to social justice' and a belief that universities should 'play a fundamental role in creating and fostering societies that are more equitable'.
Conduct commitments stifle free speech
New guidance warns that commitments such as these could stifle free speech as dissenting from what is defined as 'social justice' could be prohibited.
The Office for Students guide, overseen by free speech advocate Arif Ahmed, also advises scrapping other ways of compelling conformity that have proven controversial in the past.
It states that academics should not be required to prove their 'commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion'.
Many job applications in academia contain an inclusion statement, which incites applicants to state how they could support diversity and inclusion on campus.
Earlier this year, the campaign group Alumni for Free Speech claimed that universities including Oxford routinely demanded that job applicants support diversity measures.
New guidance states that academics being urged to profess a commitment to certain 'values, beliefs or ideas', in order to secure a job, could stifle any expression of dissent from these ideas.
Discourage reporting microaggressions
Universities have also been told to stop allowing students to anonymously report staff for expressing lawful views, and the reporting of 'microaggressions' has been discouraged.
Microaggressions are perceived slights, often related to race, that are claimed to be a form of subtle discrimination.
In 2022, the Telegraph revealed that the drama school Lamda had set up an anonymous system students could use to accuse their teachers.
New guidance states that a system for reporting perceived offence 'could discourage open and lawful discussion of controversial topics'.
Stop guest speakers being barred
The Office for Students' advice for keeping within future free speech added that invited guest speakers should not be barred from campuses 'on the grounds of their ideas or opinions'.
The act of de-platforming – refusing to allow speakers a platform to be heard – has previously been used by activists to stifle free speech.
In 2023, efforts were made to stop a gender critical academic Prof Kathleen Stock from speaking at the Oxford Union.
Mr Ahmed said of the guidance, and the coming legal changes: 'The core mission of universities and colleges is the pursuit of knowledge.
'Free speech and academic freedom are fundamental to this purpose.
'Students need to know that they can freely share lawful views and opinions, and be prepared to hear a range of views as part of their studies. This includes things that they may find uncomfortable or shocking.
'It's essential that universities keep in mind that there is a very high bar for restricting lawful speech.'
The moves to address specific mechanisms used to stifle dissenting views have been welcomed by some as 'one of the most progressive pieces of guidance ever'.
'End to highly politicised appointment processes'
Ian Pace, professor of music, culture and society at the University of London and Secretary of the London Universities' Council for Academic Freedom, said: 'This will bring about a sea-change in academia if followed.
'An end to highly politicised appointment processes and promotions, by which political adherence supersedes scholarly considerations, and which have contributed to the current malaise.
'Compulsory EDI statements for promotion, commitments to uphold 'social justice', prohibitions of 'misgendering' are all out.
He added: 'This is one of the most progressive pieces of guidance of its type ever.'
He also welcomed measures to stamp out the interference of foreign governments in universities, with guidance stating that scholarship programs paid for by states such as China which demand conformity from students, should be banned.
Should apply to student unions
While the guidance makes clear what will be expected of universities in order to adhere to the law, there are concerns that some censorship will be un-policed.
Politics professor Eric Kaufman, who resigned from Birkbeck over political 'hostility' from those on campus, has said that there is limited power 'to compel reluctant universities and administrators to give up their cherished political projects'.
Lord Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, said: 'The OfS's new guidance is reassuringly robust, but it's a great shame that the new free speech duties won't apply to student unions.
'We know from the Free Speech Union's case files that student unions are among the worst offenders when it comes to silencing dissenting voices on campus.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Lord Hermer's denial of two-tier justice is a disgrace
This week, Lord Hermer was asked by the BBC about two-tier justice, the idea that the British state treats ethnic minorities more favourably than the white working class. This perception, so corrosive to faith in the rule of law, has become widespread since the crackdown on the Southport unrest last summer. Never one to read the public or political mood, Starmer's lawyer ally simply issued a blunt and contemptuous denial. Such claims are 'frankly disgusting', he said, and indeed 'offensive' to police, prosecutors and courts. He added that instead of criticising the British justice system, politicians 'need to get behind it, not seek to undermine it'. (Perhaps he should have a word with the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, who earlier this year had to intervene to block sentencing guidelines which she herself labelled 'two-tier'.) It's a woefully tone-deaf performance, suggesting that Hermer doesn't even understand why the Government's response to the Southport unrest gave rise to charges of unfairness. He argued that people were wrong to compare the policing of London Gaza marches, often awash with anti-Semitism but 'not producing violence', with the Southport unrest, since this saw attacks against police officers. No one would say violent rioters shouldn't be treated robustly. But what Hermer ignores is the way the state dealt fiercely with white, working-class Southport rioters in a way it never does with more favoured groups. Just weeks before, when rioters in ultra-diverse Harehills, Leeds, overturned a police car and set a bus on fire, the police reportedly ran away. Meanwhile, days into the Southport unrest, when armed Muslim mobs formed supposedly in order to protect their local communities, the police let them have free rein. In Birmingham on August 5, the result was a pub being attacked, with a man outside it suffering a lacerated liver, amid other disorder. Even more than this double-standard though, it is the punitive crackdown on online speech that has caused there were many who found themselves charged and remanded in custody for social media posts, the most high-profile is Lucy Connolly, imprisoned for 31 months for a single nasty tweet (which she later deleted) on the night of the Southport murders. As the Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, Lord Hermer personally approved the prosecution of Mrs Connolly for stirring up racial hatred, despite having the constitutional power not to. Hermer has also declined to seek to review lenient sentences for gang grooming offenders – but in his political judgement, it was in the public interest for Connolly to face up to seven years in prison over one nasty tweet. Former Attorney General Suella Braverman says she would not have consented to the charge. 'We don't have a two-tiered justice system', insists Hermer. We have an 'independent justice system'. But can anyone really look at the state response to Southport and claim it 'independent' from politics? Sir Keir Starmer politicised the justice system the moment he claimed all of those involved were 'far-Right thugs', who had come from out of town to cause chaos. In reality, subsequent analysis of the arrest data along with a recent report by the police inspectorate have poured cold water on those claims. Politicians were also swiftly claiming that online speech was a principal cause, with Hermer himself crowing that 'you cannot hide behind your keyboard'. This narrative was no less dubious – no one needed to be told by social media to be angry about the horrific murders of three children. Yet both became reasons for the police, the CPS and the courts to throw the book at people like Connolly over tweets. '[T]heir intention was always to hammer me', as Lucy told the Telegraph earlier this year. Lucy's two-tier treatment continues to this day. First, she was denied release on temporary license to care for her daughter and sick husband. This is a privilege which even murderers are sometimes granted, and which has been granted to others at Lucy's prison. Now she says she's being cruelly mistreated in prison. Does Hermer seriously think it's 'disgusting' to see this as unfair? Hermer can deny two-tier justice all he likes, but the more the public hears about cases like Connolly, the more the charge rings true. A recent YouGov poll found public confidence in the judicial system at an all-time low, with the proportion expressing 'no confidence at all' rising four per cent since last June. Berating people who feel these concerns will not make them go away.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Portland incinerator: Campaigners welcome Court of Appeal hearing
Campaigners have said they are "delighted" after being granted permission to take their case against the decision to build an incinerator near Dorset's Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site to the Court of April, the High Court dismissed an appeal for a statutory review into Powerfuel Portland's £150m waste incinerator planning application was given the go-ahead by the government last September, despite initially being refused by Dorset Stop Portland Waste Incinerator (SPWI) group has argued the incinerator would cause air pollution and damage the local tourism industry. The incinerator is expected to be able to process up to 202,000 tonnes of household, commercial and skip waste a year, creating enough energy to power about 30,000 site for the incinerator is on land owned by Portland Port, which previously said the plant was "vital to this port's future" by allowing it to offer shore power to docked cruise applied for permission for a Court of Appeal hearing after the High Court failed to grant a statutory review of the campaign group has said the Secretary of State's decision "does not satisfy" Dorset Council's Waste Plan and did not properly apply local planning policy, which requires any waste incineration to be in the most appropriate Debbie Tulett said: "I am absolutely delighted that our argument that the Dorset Waste Plan has not been complied with has finally been recognised and I have been vindicated for pushing this point all the way to the Court of Appeal." Opponents of the scheme include Olympic champion Ellie Aldridge, who said "no-one will want to train" at the nearby National Sailing Academy if an incinerator was Council leader Nick Ireland has also previously said the incinerator would be "throwing out nitrous dioxide, sulphur dioxide, arsenic, nickel, chromium" into the atmosphere and harm the area's tourism Environment Agency granted Powerfuel Portland an environmental permit for the incinerator in February after concluding it had met all of its necessary waste management company has said the facility would not burn hazardous or clinical waste. You can follow BBC Dorset on Facebook, X, or Instagram.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Starmer still faces Labour anger over risk of ‘two-tier' disability benefits
Keir Starmer is battling to stem the revolt over his cuts to disability benefits, with about 50 Labour MPs concerned the new concessions will create a 'two-tier' system where existing and new claimants are treated differently. Senior government sources insisted things were 'moving in the right direction' for No 10, with the whips phoning backbenchers to persuade them to support the bill on Tuesday. Government insiders said they believed they had peeled off enough of the original 120-plus Labour opponents of the legislation to win the vote, after the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, promised to exempt current disability claimants from the changes, and to increase the health element of universal credit in line with inflation. However, rebel MPs will attempt to lay a new amendment on Monday giving colleagues a chance to delay the bill, which will still involve £2.5bn of cuts to future disability benefits. The continuing row over the changes is likely to blight the week that will mark the first anniversary of Labour's return to power. In an interview on Thursday, Starmer admitted to a range of mistakes – including using the phrase 'an island of strangers' in an immigration speech, and hiring his former chief of staff Sue Gray. His government has made a series of U-turns in the last 12 months, but his handling of the welfare bill might be the most damaging episode of them all. Starmer will next week be hoping to draw a line under the difficult period, in which the government has also reversed cuts to winter fuel payments and changed course over holding an inquiry into grooming gangs. Dozens of Labour MPs are continuing to criticise the welfare cuts on a Labour WhatsApp group. Many MPs are still undecided about how they will vote and are pressing for more assurances that it is ethical and legal to set up a division between current and future claimants. Disability charities have said the bill remains 'fatally flawed' and will lead to an 'unequal future' for different groups of disabled people, making life harder for hundreds of thousands of future claimants. The government confirmed on Friday night that people who have to make new claims for Pip after November 2026 will be assessed under the new criteria. This means those reapplying after losing their Pip or who have fluctuating health conditions will not have the level of their previous awards protected. Starmer defended the bill on Friday, saying it struck the right balance. The changes will protect 370,000 existing recipients who were expected to lose out after reassessment. The prime minister said: 'We talked to colleagues, who've made powerful representations, as a result of which we've got a package which I think will work, we can get it right.' Asked how the government would pay for the £3bn of concessions, which experts believe will have to be funded by tax rises or extra borrowing, Starmer replied: 'The funding will be set out in the budget in the usual way, as you'd expect, later in the year.' There would need to be at least 80 rebels to defeat the bill, and government sources were quietly confident they had given enough ground after Meg Hillier, the chair of the Treasury committee, said she would back the legislation following changes. Others were unconvinced. One leading rebel said 'everyone but a handful of people is unhappy', even if they do end up reluctantly backing the changed legislation. Another expressed frustration that No 10 and the whips were 'trying to bounce people into agreeing before we've seen enough details'. Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, a leading opponent of the bill, said: 'They are going to have to go back to the negotiating table … deaf and disabled people's organisations are rejecting these changes as it fails to address future need and gives no security for people with fluctuating conditions, for instance where people are in remission.' Other critics who plan to vote against the bill include the MP for Crawley, Peter Lamb, who said: 'Despite many improvements to the system set out in the bill, at its core the bill remains a cost-cutting exercise. No matter the level of involvement of disability groups in co-producing a scheme for new applicants, to save money the new scheme has to result in people with high levels of need losing the support necessary to wash themselves, dress themselves and feed themselves.' Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Simon Opher, the MP for Stroud, said he still opposed the bill. 'The changes do not tackle the eligibility issues that are at the heart of many of the problems with Pip [personal independence payments]. The bill should be scrapped and we should start again and put the needs of disabled people at the centre of the process.' Diane Abbott, a leading figure from the left of Labour, said the rebellion was 'far from over', while another Labour MP said: 'The bill starts from the premise of cuts, not reform. It's also arse about face in terms of impact assessments and co-production. It's simply a negotiated dog's dinner. In that sense, nothing has really changed except the fact they've negotiated more [people to] misguidedly to sign up to it.' One thing Labour MPs are pushing for is more clarity on the review of the Pip system, due to be done before autumn by Stephen Timms, a work and pensions minister. Many expect that process to change the points system from the current proposals. Some in the party also want Starmer to reinstate Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a whip to vote against the bill before the U-turn was made. Stella Creasy, a leading Labour MP who had initially signed the amendment to delay the bill, said she wanted to see more details. 'We need to understand why we would treat one group of claimants differently from another,' she said. A Labour MP from the 2024 intake said: 'I'm waiting to look at the details before making any decisions. Many are in the same place as me and need to get something more than a midnight email on an issue of this much importance to hundreds of thousands of people.' The Labour MPs opposed to the changes are citing a fundamental rejection of the idea that a Labour government will be making disabled people worse off. At the same time, many of them have also been alienated by what they say is a No 10 operation that is out of touch with the parliamentary party, and has tried to strongarm MPs into backing the legislation with threats and promises of preferment. 'Good will has been lost and there is still huge suspicion about whether they will try and pull a stunt at the last minute,' said one Labour MP. The majority of disability charities and campaign groups still opposed the cuts. Ellen Clifford, from Disabled People Against Cuts, said: 'Many people who rely on Pip to survive have fluctuating conditions which means our support needs can go up and down. By penalising existing claimants if we go out of and then go back to the benefits system depending on our health, more people will be denied the support they need. 'This is exactly why no disabled people's organisation across the whole of the UK has welcomed these concessions because we know the complexities of the social security system and bitter experience from years of cuts that there are many ways in which grand sweeping statements about protections translate to very little in practice when you go into the detail of it.' The disability equality charity Scope said that despite the concessions, an estimated 430,000 future disabled claimants would be affected by 2029-30. Its strategy director, James Taylor, said: 'It is encouraging that the government is starting to listen to disabled people and MPs who have been campaigning for change for months. But these plans will still rip billions from the welfare system. 'The proposed concessions will create a two-tier benefits system and an unequal future for disabled people. Life costs more if you are disabled. And these cuts will have a devastating effect on disabled people's health, ability to live independently or work.' Additional reporting by Frances Ryan
