New law could see universities sanctioned if they fail to uphold free speech
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which comes into force on Friday, will require universities and colleges in England to promote academic freedom to ensure discussions can take place on campuses without fear of censorship of students, staff or speakers expressing lawful opinions.
It also bans universities from using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in cases of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct.
Skills minister Baroness Jacqui Smith has said the government will 'not tolerate the silencing of academics or students who voice legitimate views'.
The Office for Students (OfS), England's higher education regulator, can investigate universities and colleges and impose fines if it has found they have failed to protect free speech rights.
In March, the OfS issued a record penalty of £585,000 to the University of Sussex after a three-and-a-half year probe into the resignation of academic Professor Kathleen Stock.
The OfS's investigation found the institution's trans and non-binary equality policy statement had 'a chilling effect' of possible self-censorship of students and staff on campus.
It was launched after high-profile protests called for the dismissal of Prof Stock in 2021 over her views on gender identity.
Professor Arif Ahmed, director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the OfS, previously suggested universities could face higher fines in the future if they fail to uphold free speech.
Baroness Smith said: 'Academic freedom is non-negotiable in our world-leading institutions, and we will not tolerate the silencing of academics or students who voice legitimate views.
'These strengthened protections make this explicitly clear in law, and the record fine already handed down by the OfS has put universities on notice that they must comply or face the consequences.
'Through our Plan for Change we are restoring our world class universities as engines of growth, opportunity and innovation, and fostering a culture of free inquiry and academic freedom is at the heart of that.'
In January, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson announced the government would be pushing ahead with key measures in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.
But she announced the 'statutory tort' – which could have allowed individuals to bring legal proceedings against universities that failed to comply with freedom of speech duties – would be removed from the legislation.
Ms Phillipson said the tort would create 'costly litigation that would risk diverting resources away from students'.
The implementation of legislation, passed under the previous Conservative government in 2023, was paused by Labour in July last year after the general election due to concerns it could be 'burdensome' for universities.
A new OfS complaints scheme will allow academics, external speakers and university staff to raise concerns about restrictions on their lawful free speech, which could lead to fines if their free speech is not protected.
Students will be able to make complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.
Prof Ahmed said: 'Free speech and academic freedom are fundamental to the quality of students' education and their experience in higher education.
'From today universities and colleges take on new legal duties to secure and promote freedom of speech and academic freedom.
'The OfS's regulatory requirements to prevent and address harassment and sexual misconduct are also fully in place.
'These are an important set of measures which will further protect students from harassment while ensuring that students and academics are free to discuss controversial views, including those which some might find shocking or offensive.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
20 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Presidential candidates can now be reimbursed up to €250k for election expenses
An order increasing the maximum amount of election expenses that can be reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election from €200,000 to €250,000 has been signed by Minister for Housing and Local Government James Browne. Election expenses are reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election who is elected or, if not elected, the total of their votes exceeds one quarter of the quota. Advertisement Section 21A of the Electoral Act 1997 provides that the maximum amount of election expenses that can be reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election is €200,000. However, under the Act, the minister may vary the amounts having regard to changes in the Consumer Price Index. A review of the amounts typically takes place in advance of each election. Applying the CPI increase since the amount was last revised resulted in a potential increase to €252,700 which has been rounded down to €250,000. Section 53 (as amended) of the Electoral Act 1997 provides that spending by a candidate at a presidential election shall not exceed €750,000. It is not proposed to increase the spending limit, so it will remain at €750,000.
The Sun
20 minutes ago
- The Sun
Labour's taken state spying of social media to whole new level – leaked emails read like their from dictatorship not UK
THE Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok has often aroused fears that personal data collected on its users could end up in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party. What fewer people imagined was that our own Government would try to use TikTok in order to police speech in Britain. Yet that is exactly what has happened. 7 7 7 Leaked emails show that a shady branch of government known as the National Security Online Information Team has been leaning on TikTok to suppress content that is critical of official migration and criminal justice policy. On several occasions during the riots which followed the Southport murders a year ago, the unit approached TikTok requesting that it 'assess' some posts made by its users — effectively a crude instruction to suppress what they were saying. Legitimate debate Britain, like every other country, operates security services that spy on terrorists who are plotting atrocities as well as organisations involved in propagating serious public disorder. Were a government organisation to prevent a bomb attack which could have killed dozens of people, no one would be too bothered about how it had obtained the vital information. But the emails show activity which goes far beyond the demands of national security. In one case, officials drew TikTok's attention to a post that suggested a large number of migrants were 'undocumented fighting age males'. Another suggested that TikTok take a look at users who spread 'concerning narratives about the police and a two-tier system [of justice] '. I am sure the police and courts will defend themselves robustly against a charge of operating two-tier justice, but whether or not you think they are doing this, it is a perfectly legitimate area for public debate, just as is the question of whether ethnic minorities suffer disadvantage in the workplace, schools, hospitals and so on. Those who made online accusations of a disproportionate response by the police towards protesters, and who dubbed our Prime Minister 'two-tier Keir', had good reason for raising their concerns. Ten days before the Southport murders, the Harehills area of Leeds erupted into rioting after children from a Roma family were taken into care. Protesters descend on Canary Wharf migrant hotel as police surround building amid fears over 'summer of riots' Days later there was a machete fight on Southend seafront. Keir Starmer had little to say about those grim developments, yet went into overdrive when protesters took to the streets following the Southport riots. True, there were plenty of thugs among them, but to insinuate that all protesters were driven by nothing more than 'far-right hatred' was outrageous. I am not going to defend Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months for remarks she made in the wake of the Southport killings — her words read like a pretty clear incitement to violence even if she did not intend them to. But it is perfectly reasonable to question whether her punishment was consistent with the treatment handed out to extreme Islamist preachers and Irish Republican sympathisers. Take the Prevent programme, which was set up by the Blair government specifically to deal with the threat of Islamist terrorism in the wake of the 2005 Tube bombings. 7 7 7 Over time it seems to have become more concerned with the far right. Nineteen per cent of those reported to the programme in the year ending March 2024 were recorded as supporting a far right ideology, against only 13 per cent with Islamist ideology — in spite of the latter being responsible for far more terror attacks and killings than the former over the past two decades. For Government officials to try to stop us discussing these matters is something you might associate more with a dictatorship than with British democracy. We have a human rights lawyer as PM, but where is he when it comes to defending our long-held right to free expression? Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level To be fair to Starmer, it is not just his government that has been trying to silence its critics. The National Security Online Information Team was derived from a body set up during Covid to try to gag critics of vaccines and lockdown. The Online Safety Act, which places obligations on social media companies to police content — and which the Government has used to put pressure on TikTok and other companies — was the brainchild of the last Conservative government. Deep concerns Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level. Particularly disgraceful was Technology Secretary Peter Kyle's attempt this week to claim that Nigel Farage was on the side of Jimmy Savile for daring to criticise the Online Safety Act. To listen to Kyle you would think the act was about nothing other than age verification for users of online pornography (not that Savile used the internet to abuse his victims). There are many people, myself included, who support the age verification measures but who have deep concerns about the act's other provisions, in particular its demand that technologies companies act against anything that could fall under the vague definition of being 'harmful to children'. Even the day's news could be deemed harmful to children if it upsets their immature sensibilities. The trouble is that the Online Safety Act was pushed through on the back of emotional propaganda, with few people realising the dark and disturbing ways in which it could be used to silence any of us. We are belatedly realising that now. 7
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Anti-migrant protesters face off with counter demonstrators in Southsea as disquiet grows over asylum seeker hotels across the UK
Anti-migrant demonstrators faced off against counter-protesters from Stand Up to Racism this evening outside a hotel on the south coast used to house asylum seekers. Protesters gathered outside the Royal Beach Hotel in Southsea, Hampshire, on August 1. Anti-migrant demonstrations have taken place across the South of England today, with locations including Portsmouth, Southampton and Bournemouth. More are expected across the UK this weekend as the topic of migrants continues to prove inflammatory.
