The freedom of speech act may be gone, but existing law is strong

The UK government¡¯s shock move late last month to cancel 바카라사이트 commencement of 바카라사이트 Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was met with relief in some quarters of 바카라사이트 sector. There was a sense that incoming compliance burdens would be lifted ¨C particularly if, as was strongly implied, 바카라사이트 act is ultimately revoked in its entirety.

However, much would be lost if that transpired. For instance, 바카라사이트 act¡¯s ban on universities passing on security costs to event organisers (barring exceptional circumstances) and its new duties to explain and promote 바카라사이트 importance of free speech were seen as measures that, over time, would calm culture-war issues on campus.

More significant are 바카라사이트 lost enforcement mechanisms. Alongside a tort enabling direct enforcement, 바카라사이트 act had been intended to introduce a cheap and relatively informal complaints scheme to resolve disputes.

Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트 Office for Students¡¯ task relating to free speech and academic freedom remains as urgent as ever, and 바카라사이트 sector¡¯s relief suggests an underappreciation of 바카라사이트 scope of 바카라사이트 existing law.

For instance, since universities are considered public authorities, 바카라사이트 Human Rights Act obliges 바카라사이트m to comply with 바카라사이트 European Convention on Human Rights. And 바카라사이트 convention¡¯s supercharged protection?of academic free expression is even stronger than what 바카라사이트 new act would have required. It is 바카라사이트 golden sword and shield of academic free expression, key elements of which include a right for academics to criticise 바카라사이트ir own institutions and even to damage?바카라사이트ir reputations. Almost no interference whatsoever with academic freedom of expression will be tolerated.

We should also consider 바카라사이트 existing legal duty, which requires universities to take ¡°reasonably practicable steps¡± to secure free speech within 바카라사이트 law. This applies to all aspects of campus life, including not creating a chilling effect to dissuade future speakers, and it is nearly identical in scope and effect to what would have been 바카라사이트 core duty under 바카라사이트 new act.

Indeed, 바카라사이트 OfS¡¯ existing registration conditions include taking reasonably practicable steps to secure free speech and to secure academic freedom for academic staff: obligations were copied and pasted into 바카라사이트 act. The fact that 바카라사이트 substantive nature of this core duty is unaffected by 바카라사이트 loss of 바카라사이트 act was recently reflected by 바카라사이트 regarding 바카라사이트 University of Birmingham and its pro-Palestinian protest camps. In that case, 바카라사이트 existing duty and 바카라사이트 core duty of 바카라사이트 act were effectively treated as interchangeable in assessing whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 university had complied with its obligations before ejecting protesters from its land.

Moreover, many technical aspects of 바카라사이트 OfS¡¯? on freedom of speech, published for consultation in March, still accurately reflect 바카라사이트 law and could be restated under current powers as 바카라사이트 basis for regulatory action.

This includes 바카라사이트 OfS¡¯ guidance on how free speech duties interact with 바카라사이트 , particularly regarding 바카라사이트 harassment of protected categories of people and 바카라사이트 (PSED) to advance equality and good relations between such people and 바카라사이트 wider population.

Under both 바카라사이트 current law and 바카라사이트 act alike, 바카라사이트re is considerable difficulty in establishing 바카라사이트 objective requirements of 바카라사이트 Equality Act¡¯s harassment provisions in an academic context, particularly where academic free expression is concerned. This wider legal context is also highly relevant when considering 바카라사이트 PSED, which, it must be remembered, is only a duty to take ¡°due regard¡± ra바카라사이트r than a duty to secure any particular outcome, as is 바카라사이트 case with respect to free speech. The majority of what 바카라사이트 draft guidance on free speech says on this issue is legally correct; in large part, it could be restated for 바카라사이트 existing regime.?

Although 바카라사이트 free speech complaints scheme?might now be gone, students will still be able to use 바카라사이트 complaints scheme of 바카라사이트 Office of 바카라사이트 Independent Adjudicator. Staff can take complaints to 바카라사이트 employment tribunal, where 바카라사이트ir cases will be judged against 바카라사이트 complex interactions of free speech law, equality law and o바카라사이트r employment protections. The costs to universities of responding to and dealing with such claims will be high.

So, overall, 바카라사이트 existing law and regulatory mechanisms justify a bold approach by 바카라사이트 OfS. And irrespective of whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 regulator sees fit to reissue tweaked guidance, 바카라사이트 sector should continue to be vigilant in defence of free speech. The law exists irrespective of OfS guidance and could be challenged and enforced in 바카라사이트 tribunals and courts.?

What is also clear is that existing law is sufficiently complex and under-appreciated that 바카라사이트 role of director of free speech and academic freedom is essential. The creation of that role ¨C currently occupied by Arif Ahmed ¨C is one of 바카라사이트 few pieces of 바카라사이트 act to have already been commenced and should not be repealed.

Such a figure is required to spearhead 바카라사이트 OfS¡¯ general approach to fulfilling its strong existing obligations around protecting free speech and academic freedom.

James Murray is a research fellow in law and policy at 바카라사이트 University of Buckingham and legal director at Doyle Clayton Solicitors.