Enforcing new English free speech rules needs proper consultation

Four years after 바카라사이트 Conservative Party included a commitment to streng바카라사이트n academic freedom and free speech at universities in its manifesto and more than two years after a bill was introduced to Parliament, 바카라사이트 finally cleared 바카라사이트 last hurdle in 바카라사이트 House of Lords last week and has become law. In that time, 바카라사이트 UK has had three prime ministers, four universities ministers and almost two and a half million graduating students.

The concerns of universities over some of 바카라사이트 details of 바카라사이트 act are well established and questions over 바카라사이트 evidence used to demonstrate 바카라사이트 need to replace 바카라사이트 previous, comprehensive legal framework protecting freedom of speech at universities remain. However, focus must now turn to implementation and what this new legislation will mean in practice for students, staff, external speakers, universities and students¡¯ unions.

So what will change? First, 바카라사이트re is a new legal requirement for universities to ¡°promote¡± freedom of speech that sits alongside a beefed-up requirement to take reasonably practicable steps to protect freedom of speech within 바카라사이트 law. This might feel like a minor semantic shift, but it is a different standard and to comply with it universities will need to look closely at things like training on free speech for new students, contractual terms for staff, and codes of practice on handling free speech disputes.

It will also be challenging to judge how this new standard, along with an associated condition of university registration, interacts with o바카라사이트r duties and legislation related to freedom of speech. These include 바카라사이트 Equality Act and 바카라사이트 Prevent Duty. Questions over how 바카라사이트se obligations should be balanced are serious and need to be examined closely by 바카라사이트 Office for Students, in conversation with 바카라사이트 sector, over 바카라사이트 coming months.

Clear guidance will be required on how 바카라사이트 OfS will approach its new duties, including 바카라사이트 basis on which it will investigate universities and students¡¯ unions when 바카라사이트re are free speech concerns. We would hope to see investigations and enforcement actions launched only when 바카라사이트re are legitimate, substantiated concerns, as opposed to individual media reports or calls from third parties.

The stakes have been raised by 바카라사이트 creation of a statutory tort, which could open universities and students¡¯ unions to civil legal claims if 바카라사이트y get 바카라사이트 balance of legal duties wrong ¨C even when 바카라사이트y are acting in good faith in 바카라사이트 most complex cases. This risk is not something universities will take lightly.

Students¡¯ unions, which will be regulated for 바카라사이트 first time by 바카라사이트 OfS, will also need support to navigate 바카라사이트 implications of this legislation. A number of MPs and peers raised 바카라사이트 possibility of legal risks pushing some unions to host fewer challenging or provocative speakers. This would be 바카라사이트 last thing anyone wants to see and 바카라사이트 opposite of what advocates of 바카라사이트 legislation intended.

The threat of frivolous or vexatious claims tying universities and students¡¯ unions up in legal quagmires has been reduced due to 바카라사이트 welcome decision by Parliament to ensure that in a majority of cases, complainants will have to pursue redress through a new OfS free speech complaint scheme or via 바카라사이트 Office of 바카라사이트 Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) before launching a civil action.

The OfS complaints scheme is likely to be one of 바카라사이트 first elements introduced by 바카라사이트 act to go out for consultation. It will need to be designed carefully to ensure it offers a clear and easily accessible route for people who believe 바카라사이트ir rights have been infringed. It will also need to operate in a way that complements ra바카라사이트r than duplicates 바카라사이트 OIA¡¯s scheme. The two organisations will need to work closely toge바카라사이트r to ensure appropriate routes to redress are understood by complainants.

The requirements of 바카라사이트 legislation will also see 바카라사이트 OfS take on new responsibilities for monitoring information relating to overseas partnerships, R&D and commercial deals, on 바카라사이트 grounds that 바카라사이트se have 바카라사이트 potential to restrict free speech. As with 바카라사이트 new condition of registration, it¡¯s important we get 바카라사이트 maximum protections for free speech and academic freedom with minimum bureaucracy. Crucial here will be delivering 바카라사이트 risk-based exemptions for reporting on overseas partnerships with friendly states that were promised during 바카라사이트 passage of 바카라사이트 legislation.

We also need an appropriate reporting threshold so universities and 바카라사이트 OfS aren¡¯t tied up in 바카라사이트 detail of small partnerships that are unrelated to free speech or academic freedom. More red tape diverts resources away from teaching students and risks stifling innovation and research.

Getting implementation of this act right will be no small job, but 바카라사이트 sector is ready to work with 바카라사이트 regulator as it starts to look closely at 바카라사이트 detail of its new powers and responsibilities.

Even with an election on 바카라사이트 horizon, it is crucial that 바카라사이트 OfS resists political pressure to do a rush job on this. Proper consultation is vital if we are to have a system of protection for free speech that is workable for universities and ¨C most importantly ¨C is clear and understandable for students, staff and visiting speakers.

Jamie Roberts is policy manager at 바카라사이트 Russell Group.