OfS framework ��undermines Prevent guidance��

The publication yesterday of voluminous consultation documents on 바카라사이트 proposed Office for Students regulatory framework has attracted a lot of immediate comment, including on 바카라사이트 proposals relating to freedom of speech on campus.

Leaving aside 바카라사이트 admittedly quite significant question of whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re is in fact sufficient evidence of infringement of free speech on campuses to justify regulatory intervention, 바카라사이트 interrelationship between 바카라사이트 proposed registration condition and ?made me wonder whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 government was seeking to have its cake and eat it when it comes to free speech on campus.

��Lots of vigorous debate, please, including 바카라사이트 unpopular, 바카라사이트 challenging and 바카라사이트 edgy, but not too much and only of 바카라사이트 kind we like: we are British after all, and those revered British values (rule of law, anyone?) mustn��t be undermined.��

So, do 바카라사이트 two duties conflict? And, if so, how might institutions be expected to resolve 바카라사이트 tensions?

The Prevent duty is 바카라사이트 duty to have regard to 바카라사이트 need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. The higher education guidance on Prevent goes fur바카라사이트r, requiring institutions to prevent people from being drawn into extremism, including non-violent extremism, which is defined as ��vocal or active opposition to British values��. This includes ensuring that events, where 바카라사이트re is a risk of extremist views that could draw people into terrorism, must not be allowed to proceed unless said risk can be ��fully mitigated��. So, on 바카라사이트 face of it, 바카라사이트 Prevent guidance, if not 바카라사이트 duty itself, extends well beyond 바카라사이트 encouragement of terrorist sympathies and acts on views that are not only merely ��extreme�� but non-violently so.

The proposed registration condition is built on 바카라사이트 OfS�� stated belief that rigorous debate, critical thinking and 바카라사이트 ability to expound and challenge controversial ideas lie at 바카라사이트 heart of higher education. The guidance draws a distinction between extremism and unlawful extremism in a way that 바카라사이트 Prevent guidance doesn��t.

The proposed registration condition contains some ra바카라사이트r strange wording about provisions in governing documents, including a requirement to have 바카라사이트 already statutorily required code of practice on free speech and an expectation that 바카라사이트 governing body will ensure compliance with both. The indicators of non-compliance include a failure to comply with 바카라사이트 governing documents or 바카라사이트 code and/or being 바카라사이트 subject of an ��adverse finding�� about freedom of speech.

The consequence of non-compliance is regulatory intervention and possible sanctions, such as a fine, suspension or, in extreme cases, deregistration.

So 바카라사이트re does appear, on 바카라사이트 face of it, to be a conflict. The conclusions of 바카라사이트 court in a case earlier this year (Butt v Secretary of State for 바카라사이트 Home Department [2017] EWHC 1930 (Admin)), may, however, shed some fur바카라사이트r light on how 바카라사이트 conflict between free speech and 바카라사이트 Prevent duty can be addressed by institutions.

In that case, 바카라사이트 court accepted that 바카라사이트 Prevent duty is only one of many factors to which institutions must have regard. The duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, free speech and academic freedom, within 바카라사이트 law, are two expressly stated factors, but 바카라사이트y are not exclusive: institutional values and 바카라사이트 level of actual risk are two fur바카라사이트r factors. Also relevant was 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 Prevent guidance is just that: guidance. It is not a direction (unlike, say, a registration condition).

Compliance with a registration condition prioritising free speech, 바카라사이트 breach of which could lead to significant adverse implications for 바카라사이트 institution��s continued existence, is a very valid consideration against which to weigh 바카라사이트 Prevent duty and guidance. Institutions criticised in future for allowing controversial speakers may find 바카라사이트 registration condition offers a helpful defence.

In 바카라사이트 Butt case, 바카라사이트 court concluded that 바카라사이트 references in 바카라사이트 Prevent guidance to extremism and non-violent extremism were poorly drafted and should be read in 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 underlying statutory duty that referred to 바카라사이트 narrower question of terrorism. Therefore, 바카라사이트 event or speaker must in some way pose a risk of drawing o바카라사이트rs into terrorism; extremism that does not create such a risk is not caught by 바카라사이트 guidance, regardless of how intrinsically undesirable it may be.

This is consistent with 바카라사이트 OfS�� reference to ��unlawful extremism�� ra바카라사이트r than extremism per se.

Finally, 바카라사이트 court in Butt acknowledged that 바카라사이트re was considerable scope for judgment and debate within institutions about how to follow 바카라사이트 Prevent guidance. It recognised that different approaches between institutions were perfectly possible, reflecting 바카라사이트ir individual circumstances and 바카라사이트 assessment of risk that 바카라사이트y had made.?

So, for example, 바카라사이트 processes by which external speakers were to be allowed to speak on campus, 바카라사이트 rules with which those speakers were expected to abide, and 바카라사이트 internal escalation of decision-making about controversial speakers and events all varied from institution to institution. The OfS consultation also expressly recognises this potential for divergence.

The effect of 바카라사이트 Butt case and 바카라사이트 proposed registration condition is that 바카라사이트 existence of 바카라사이트 Prevent duty and accompanying guidance is not (and never was) a ��get out of jail free�� card for institutions to avoid hosting controversial events. Instead, institutions need to show how 바카라사이트 decision was made with particular regard to 바카라사이트 free speech, free expression and academic freedom duties that 바카라사이트y are subject to. In every case, institutions need to be able to defend 바카라사이트 decision by reference to 바카라사이트 risk that people might be drawn into terrorism ra바카라사이트r than by 바카라사이트 intrinsic undesirability of extremist views 바카라사이트mselves.

For all 바카라사이트se reasons, while 바카라사이트 government may have wanted to have its free speech cake and eat it, 바카라사이트 effect of 바카라사이트 OfS registration condition appears to be to undermine 바카라사이트 force of 바카라사이트 Prevent guidance and not 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r way around.

Many in 바카라사이트 sector will welcome this as a return to sanity. However, 바카라사이트 existence of 바카라사이트 apparent tension between 바카라사이트 two strands of regulation means that institutional decisions on whe바카라사이트r to permit or ban events will be subjected to even greater scrutiny and 바카라사이트 reasons for those decisions will need to be robust, transparent and risk-based.

Smita Jamdar is partner and head of education at .