Latest news with #OfficeForStudents
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
The academics muzzled by cancel culture
'You should expect to face views you might find shocking or offensive, and you should be aware that's part of the process of education,' said Arif Ahmed, a Cambridge philosophy lecturer and the Government's 'free speech tsar'. Ahmed is the director of freedom of speech and academic freedom at the Office for Students (OFS), the university regulator. His remarks were addressed to students last week as the body published new guidance on protecting free speech at universities, ahead of incoming legislation which will take effect in August. For the students, academics and support staff who have found themselves caught up in academia's battle with intolerance, they were welcome words. But for others they were too little, too late. Alongside the guidance, the OFS commissioned a YouGov poll which found that one in five academics does not feel 'free' to discuss challenging subjects, while nearly a quarter fear they could be physically attacked for broaching controversial topics, including transgender ideology. 'Higher-education providers and constituent institutions should have a high tolerance for all kinds of lawful speech,' states the new guidance, which provides examples of how institutions should respond to scenarios such as protests, the investigation of staff and student complaints and ensuring speakers are not prevented from expressing their opinions. 'There should be a very strong presumption in favour of permitting lawful speech.' Academics have welcomed the changes, which they hope will provide some much-needed clarity in a notoriously difficult area. Edward Skidelsky, a philosophy lecturer at the University of Exeter and the director of the Committee for Academic Freedom, is one of them. He praised the 'reassuringly robust' new guidance, which makes it clear that students and academics will not be punished for speaking their mind. 'Students feel very constrained when it comes to certain topics,' he tells The Telegraph. 'I teach sexual ethics as part of one of my courses and it is difficult to get a discussion going. They clam up. I discuss Catholic views of homosexuality, and I'll often say, 'Does anyone want to defend these views?' because I think everything should be up for debate. But no one ever does. 'Even though I'm sure there are people in the class who agree with those views, they won't defend them publicly, mainly because they are frightened of what other students might think of them. Some will talk to me privately and be more open, but they feel constricted in front of other students. They worry they'll be cut out of social networks and friendship groups. People won't want to talk to them in the bar. They'll be ostracised.' Skidelsky says he has seen a marked change since his own time as an undergraduate, when identity politics was much less fraught. 'When I was an undergrad in the 1990s, politics didn't really matter. You didn't choose your friends according to their political views. It was something you talked about out of interest but it wasn't integral to your identity in the way it's become now. That's the big difference. People really divide into groups according to whether they are conservatives or liberals.' Modern university culture has been influenced by the desire to create more equitable spaces for students, who come from a wider variety of backgrounds. But the desire for tolerance has spilt over into intolerance of arguments that are seen to run counter to the prevailing progressive views. In the latest such case, the University of Bristol was on Monday accused of failing to protect one of its own professors after he was falsely accused of Islamophobia. Professor Steven Greer had taught at the institution for 36 years when he was said to have insulted Islam and the Koran during a discussion with students about the Islamist attacks on France's Charlie Hebdo magazine in 2015. Six months later, a student who had not attended the discussion lodged a complaint about alleged Islamophobia, which the university then acted on, launching a five-month inquiry which ultimately wholly exonerated Greer. Despite this, the university scrapped the module in question, titled 'Islam, China and the Far East'. Greer was meanwhile subject to a campaign of abuse that resulted in him temporarily leaving his home due to concerns for his safety. He ultimately resigned and has since accused the university of endangering his life to avoid being seen as anti-Muslim, warning his case could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. Remi Adekoya, who teaches politics at the University of York, says that, ironically, it can be ethnic minorities who feel the chill most powerfully. Indeed, the YouGov poll commissioned by the OFS found the percentage of those who do not feel free to broach controversial topics rises to a third for academics from ethnic minority backgrounds. 'Students said they felt afraid of offending someone,' says Adekoya. 'One interesting answer came from an ethnic minority student, who said, 'The reason I don't want to discuss issues around race and colonialism is because very often I am the only ethnic minority in the classroom, and I feel anything I say about race the class will simply agree with me because that's what they have to do. That doesn't make sense to me.' Students don't like to sense people are walking on eggshells around them. 'In other societies I've lived in, people have public opinions and private opinions,' he adds. 'In the UK, people have public opinions, private opinions and secret opinions. There are some things which people won't say even in a room full of colleagues.' With regard to the new guidance, he says: 'Any move towards entrenching academic freedom in UK universities is a good thing.' The new guidance was issued after requests from universities for clarity on how they could uphold freedom of speech. In March, the University of Sussex was fined £585,000 after its policy on trans and non-binary equality was ruled to have had a chilling effect on free speech. Kathleen Stock, a prominent gender-critical academic, had previously resigned over its policies. (The university is appealing against the decision.) For academics who have fallen foul of the intolerance in British academia in recent years, however, the shift is too little, too late. In January, Martin Speake, a renowned saxophonist, resigned from his teaching position at Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance in Greenwich after he said the college had made his position 'untenable'. The row began in early 2024, when he replied to an email from the principal of the conservatoire stating that there was racial inequality in jazz music and supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. The principal invited feedback. 'I shared my experience, which was nothing like what he mentioned,' Speake says. In his email, he wrote that he wanted to discuss the broader issue and that 'black musicians in jazz and many other styles of music are definitely not under-represented in the UK' and in fact 'have far more opportunities than many others'. For him, he wrote, 'opportunity is about class, not skin colour'. Speake never had a direct reply to his email, but he showed it to a student, who read it to 'three or four' other classmates. Word started to get out. Speake's classes were suspended. The day after a fractious meeting of the students to discuss the case, Speake says the director of music told him: 'I fear for your safety.' As anger spread in the student body, Speake was signed off sick. Venues cancelled his gigs and a record label refused to put his album out. 'It was very, very disturbing and stressful,' he says. 'Nobody would talk to me in the corridor. I'd say hello, some students would ignore me, others would say hello.' Other teaching work at the Guildhall and the Royal Academy of Music dried up, too. 'The students have changed,' he says. 'Mainly it's to do with fees, but it's also to do with the ideology people call woke.' Speake is bringing a case for unfair dismissal against Trinity Laban. 'The main thing is betrayal,' he says. 'I feel huge betrayal by the institutions, the students, and old friends and musicians. I'm stronger because of it, but it's very sad. I've lost a lot.' (Trinity Laban was approached for comment. The institution has previously contested Speake's version of events. A spokesman stated that 'no disciplinary actions were taken against Mr Speake on the basis of his personal views'.) For other academics, the issue has not been their personal views but the curriculum. Almut Gadow taught law at the Open University for nearly a decade before she was summarily dismissed in 2022 for misconduct. She had posted messages on a university noticeboard critical of changes to the law curriculum, which she said would 'indoctrinate students in gender ideology theory'. 'The discussion started around the fact that for one law tutorial they had created a fictitious scenario, which was supposed to be around GBH, where the perpetrator identified as gender-neutral, so 'they/them' pronouns were supposed to be used,' Gadow recalls. 'I asked why. The law does not recognise a third gender, so why should I, a trained lawyer, recognise a third gender. This was a criminal law scenario where you pretended to be a prosecutor. The role of a prosecutor in court is to present fact. The sex of the offender and victim might be relevant; the gender identity is not. It is not the role of the prosecutor or court to affirm the defendant's gender identity.' Her posts in question were removed before she was dismissed for violating inclusivity policies. The university initially countered that Gadow had made 'offensive and spurious allegations online which we reject in the strongest of terms', but settled the case in March for an undisclosed amount. 'It was tremendously unfair,' she says. 'It flies in the face of everything a university should be. You shouldn't be sacked from your university for not wanting to promote particular social and political ideologies in your classroom. That's not how free universities in free countries work.' With German and Peruvian heritage, Gadow is aware of the risks of using universities for ideological ends. 'I was told that [the gender issue] was not relevant to the teaching of law but helps achieve broader aims of liberating the curriculum,' she says. 'I replied that including things that aren't relevant to the subject because it helps achieve broader ideological objectives is something that might be very familiar to people who hail from totalitarian regimes.' A spokesman for the Open University said: 'We don't comment on cases post-settlement, preferring instead to be mindful of the confidentiality of that settlement and the privacy of the individual involved.' The YouGov survey makes startling reading. More than a quarter of respondents said their university had become less tolerant of a range of viewpoints during their tenure. Less than half think their university would prioritise freedom of speech over not causing offence. And two thirds believe their university would prioritise staff and/or students feeling safe over freedom of speech. But despite the sense of gloom, there have been signs that the mood might be changing already. Adekoya says things are 'improving' in terms of 'a slightly freer atmosphere for academic debate'. On gender, in particular, Skidelsky says the Cass Review in April last year and the Supreme Court ruling in April have helped reopen debate. 'There has been a big push-back on [the transgender issue],' he says. 'People are more free to speak their minds than they were a few years ago. People do feel safer to say that trans women are not real women.' But he warns that there is plenty of work left to do in other areas. 'I'm not sure if the general direction of travel is back towards liberalism,' he says. 'On DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion], universities are pushing that even harder as a reaction to the Trump presidency. 'It damages universities' authority with the public as they're seen as bastions of wokery, they're not trusted by people in the way they used to be. I think it makes them less attractive to students, so they're struggling to maintain numbers. Students are deciding they're better off not going at all. And it interferes with the core purpose of universities, which is to discover the truth. If people are always being judged on their allegiance to ideology, they're not free to pursue the truth.' Under the new legislation, the OFS will be able to sanction universities, with the potential for fines to run into millions of pounds, if they are found to have failed to uphold freedom of speech. But even if academics feel more relaxed as a result, any renewed sense of freedom will take a while to filter down to students. In the social media era, the threat of social censure remains just as potent. They may be allowed to speak their mind, but that is not the same thing as doing it.
Times
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Times
Times letters: Free speech and students seeing both sides
Write to letters@ Sir, You report (Jun 19) Arif Ahmed, the head of free speech at the Office for Students, as saying that students should 'write essays defending viewpoints they find offensive'. I am sure most students would find this a pointless and unpleasant requirement. It would be much more natural to require them to write about a controversial issue in dialogue form, coming to a reasoned judgment as to the merits of the arguments on both sides. Ever since Plato, this has been a common device among western philosophers. Besides, the present fixation with writing essays has the dangerous side-effect of encouraging confirmation bias. This is the intellectual fault of ignoring factors that count against the position that the writer is arguing for, and which underlies a lot of bad scientific reasoning. Still worse is when examiners have a model essay in mind and mark students down for the extent to which they deviate from it. This is indoctrination rather than MacDonald RossLeeds Sir, Your report of Arif Ahmed's call for students to write essays defending viewpoints they oppose is a salient reminder that schools should develop the character strengths of empathy and open-mindedness in young people. Fortunately, such perspective-taking exercises are central to religious studies, philosophy and ethics courses, taught at GCSE and A-level, in which students must craft arguments both for and against social issues such as assisted dying, military intervention and genetic Kerr-ShawBerkhamsted, Herts Sir, There has been a huge increase in people's lack of tolerance towards the viewpoint of others over the past few years ('Academics 'fear being cancelled'', news, Jun 19). One way to tackle this would be for those in education to be exposed to views that are lawful — but which they might find offensive — and to discuss them. I therefore welcome the new guidance from the Office for Students. At the same time I find it remarkable that universities should have to be told to 'amend or terminate any agreement with foreign states or institutions that enabled censorship'. Universities are known to be under financial pressure but surely freedom of speech is one of the qualities that made our universities great in the first SmithWoking, Surrey Sir, The article on my piece in The Critic magazine ('Seldon 'put university on route to catastrophe'', Jun 19) focused on the University of Buckingham's experience. But I was using Buckingham only as an example. The time has come for all universities to remodel their governance on that used by Oxford, Cambridge, the Inns of Court and the medical royal colleges, and to be governed only by their academics. In the words of Michael Shattock, the doyen of university governance: 'Where improprieties and breakdowns have occurred, they have centred on governing bodies and the executive . . . not on the academic community.' Yet university improprieties and breakdowns are more common than is generally KealeyCambridge Sir, The European Space Agency's vision of orbital and lunar habitats is bold and commendable ('Life on Mars? Maybe . . . in 2040', Jun 19). But without enforceable governance and clear rights frameworks, technological ambition risks fuelling geopolitical rivalry and risky orbital militarisation. Space has become a geostrategic, economic and technological frontier, raising urgent questions about governance, equity, safety, security and sustainability in extreme environments. Who will ensure individual rights in space or prevent militarised or corporatised colonies? We must marry technical ambition in space with ethical foresight and multi-stakeholder interests. The ESA's vision, while laudable, must not become merely a technocratic road map. It should be underpinned by laws and norms and a vision for a planetary social contract: one that reconciles national and corporate interests with transcultural and transplanetary interests in a sustainable and peaceful Nayef Al-RodhanHead, Outer Space Security Cluster, Geneva Centre for Security Policy Sir, The assisted dying bill specifies that doctors must undertake 'detailed training' on domestic abuse, including coercive control. The government's impact assessment describes this as 'an advanced, two-day, in-person training package'. For six years I have worked for a domestic abuse charity supporting victim-survivors. We know that some perpetrators of coercive behaviours drive their victims to suicide, either because the victim cannot see a way out of the abuse or because the perpetrator deliberately tells them that they are worthless and should take their own lives. A one-off, two-day domestic abuse course will not provide participants with the skills to adequately detect domestic abuse and coercive control every time. It takes the experience and expertise of qualified domestic abuse practitioners to understand the dynamics and be able to pick them out. Without much stronger engagement with domestic abuse specialists this legislation would place victim-survivors at risk of being coerced into ending their own EllisChief executive, Rising Sun Domestic Violence & Abuse Service Sir, The attorney-general is right to question the legality of Britain participating in US-led military strikes on Iran ('Britain could support US to strike Iran from the air', Jun 19). International law prohibits the use of force, with only two generally accepted exceptions — neither of which apply here. First, there is no UN security council authorisation. This makes the situation even clearer than the 2003 Iraq intervention. Then, the government could argue that it was acting under an earlier resolution that had been 'revived' because of Iraq's misconduct. No such argument is available now. Second, the UK cannot rely on the claim of self-defence. Neither Britain nor Israel have been attacked. Rather, it was Israel's surprise attack that reignited hostilities after months of relative calm. While international lawyers debate whether a state may act against an imminent attack, publicly available information does not indicate that one was about to occur against Israel or any other state. Without credible evidence to the contrary — or further developments, such as Iranian strikes on UK assets — military action against Iran cannot be justified as self-defence. The prime minister should heed the legal advice and avoid dragging the UK into another military adventure without a clear legal MacakProfessor of international law, University of Exeter Sir, No one in the Chilterns will be surprised by the HS2 shambles ('HS2 an 'appalling mess' with no completion date', Jun 19). I was a member of the Chiltern Society sub-group charged with keeping a watching brief on the project. Various transport secretaries and MPs visited on fact-finding trips and in my view treated local protests with bored indifference. We were simply rich nimbys who didn't understand HS2's national significance. The only MP who treated the issue with any zeal was the late Cheryl Gillan, the MP for Chesham & Amersham, and she was dismissed as an overexcitable local politician. The problem with HS2 was that there was no real opposition to it in parliament. Conservatives and Labour both wanted it to happen and consequently no one in charge took alternative viewpoints seriously. If there had been an independent public inquiry before the project began — as in the case of Terminal 5 at Heathrow — strict conditions would have been laid down and the project would not have careened out of control like the proverbial runaway train. Such an inquiry would have delayed the start and possibly added costs — but not to the extent we are enduring with BrownPenn, Bucks Sir, In 1896 Henry Labouchere MP branded a proposed rail link between Kenya and Uganda the 'lunatic line'. The 660-mile line took five years to build and cost between £600 million and £800 million in today's money (as well as the lives of dozens of workers lost to the Tsavo man-eating lions). With HS2 now expected to cost more than £100 billion and take upwards of 20 years to complete, one wonders what Labouchere would have made of this new level of Pearce-HigginsLondon SW15 Sir, Libby Purves's article on the King's birthday honours (Jun 16; letter, Jun 17) brings to attention one of the problems with the honours system. Leaders of small charities and historical and community organisations may be honoured as representatives of the bodies they front but the award is intended for the whole entity, which is usually staffed by volunteers. Is there a case for instituting a new honour for such small-scale bodies? Perhaps an Order of National Service to be appended to the name of the organisation, modelled on the George Cross. It would not need hierarchies (KCBE, CBE, etc) and would recognise the corporate work of the organisation, rather than the temporary figurehead. I write as one whose MBE was obviously intended for the whole Church Monuments Society rather than me as an Jean Wilson MBEHarlton, Cambs Sir, Oxford Street is not one of the most unpleasant places in London because of vehicle traffic (news, Jun 17; letter, Jun 19). Its unpleasantness comes from phone thieves and a preponderance of dubious vape and candy stores. Neighbouring Soho is a far better candidate for pedestrianisation, containing no meaningful thoroughfares and having staged a successful period of pedestrianisation during the pandemic, which transformed dining out in the CaseyLondon W6 Sir, In disparaging the idea of a National Potato Week (notebook, Jun 19), Hilary Rose misunderstands the importance of the October holiday to Scottish schools. It allows pupils to help farms to harvest the potato crop. That young children today know where potatoes come from is doubtful, let alone what season the harvest falls in. I am harvesting my own potatoes (Arran pilot) in August but perhaps schools should encourage pupils to celebrate the potato by visiting a farm this JD MckelvieHelensburgh, Argyll and Bute Sir, As usual, Citroën was way ahead of the needs of modern drivers. As well as power steering and adaptive 'see round the corner' headlights, our 1974 Citroën DS has an air horn. A gentle nudge gives the 'vehicular cough' Sathnam Sanghera asks for (notebook, Jun 16; letters, Jun 17 & 18). A harder tug and it blares out something more akin to a wounded trombone. Effective and RappleOxford Sir, Living on the banks of the River Ribble we four rectory children were called to meals with a handbell over the railings (letter, Jun 19). The whole village knew our VarcoeSt Minver, Cornwall Write to letters@
Telegraph
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
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.'
Yahoo
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
English university students must face 'shocking' ideas in a drive to protect free speech on campus
LONDON (AP) — Students at English universities must prepare to confront ideas they find uncomfortable and shocking, the national regulator for higher education said as it released new guidelines governing free speech on campuses across the country. The Office for Students said Thursday that freedom of speech and academic freedom are crucial to higher education, so the guidelines are designed to ensure that universities don't stifle any form of legal speech on their campuses or in their classrooms. Students must be allowed to freely share their opinions and be prepared to hear a range of views during their studies, Arif Ahmed, free speech director for the regulator, said in a statement. 'This includes things that they may find uncomfortable or shocking,' he said. 'By being exposed to a diversity of academic thought, students will develop their analytical and critical thinking skills.' The guidance comes as concern grows that British universities had gone too far in silencing professors and students who expressed ideas some people found offensive. In particular, gender-critical academics and pro-Israeli groups say they have been targeted by university officials and students who disagree with their ideas. In 2021, professor Kathleen Stock resigned from her position at the University of Sussex after a group of students who identified as queer, trans and nonbinary demanded that she be fired for expressing the belief that there are two immutable sexes, male and female. Earlier this year, the Office for Students fined the university 585,000 pounds ($785,000) for failing to uphold freedom of speech. The guidance released on Thursday is designed to implement legislation protecting freedom of speech on university campuses that was passed by the previous government in 2023. The regulator stressed that unlawful speech, including speech that violates anti-terror, equality or public order laws, is not protected by the legislation. Universities also have the right to regulate time, place and manner of lawful speech so that that it doesn't interfere with research, teaching and learning. While the guidance is a good first step, universities will still have a difficult time balancing all the interests on their campuses, Julian Sladdin, a partner at the law firm Pinsent Masons, told the Guardian newspaper. 'The difficulty which remains in practical terms is the fact that institutions are still subject to dealing day-to-day with extremely complex and often polarizing issues on campus and where the bounds of what may be lawful free speech are constantly being tested,' he was quoted as saying.
Washington Post
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
English university students must face 'shocking' ideas in a drive to protect free speech on campus
LONDON — Students at English universities must prepare to confront ideas they find uncomfortable and shocking, the national regulator for higher education said as it released new guidelines governing free speech on campuses across the country. The Office for Students said Thursday that freedom of speech and academic freedom are crucial to higher education, so the guidelines are designed to ensure that universities don't stifle any form of legal speech on their campuses or in their classrooms.
