The Kathleen Stock case shows 바카라사이트 OfS means business on free speech

The Office for Students (OfS) has fined 바카라사이트 University of Sussex ?585,000 for breaching two conditions of its regulatory framework. , concerning public interest governance, was breached?because of?restrictions on free speech and academic freedom in 바카라사이트 university��s , effective from 2018.

Four specific statements were found to limit lawful expression, including gender-critical views protected under 바카라사이트 . Those were requiring positive representation of trans people, prohibiting stereotypical assumptions, banning transphobic propaganda, and classifying transphobic abuse as a disciplinary offence.

This created a ��chilling effect��, notably affecting Kathleen Stock, who felt unable to teach certain topics given her gender-critical views. The breach spanned from August 2019 to at least March 2024, with inadequate safeguards despite policy updates in 2022 and 2023. A ?360,000 penalty was imposed for this violation.

, relating to effective management and governance, was breached?owing to a pattern of decisions, including 바카라사이트 adoption of 바카라사이트 Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement, made without proper delegated authority, by groups such as 바카라사이트 University Executive Group. This risked lower-quality decision-making, prompting a ?225,000 fine.

The OfS investigation, triggered by Stock��s 2021 exit from Sussex amid protests and accusations of transphobia, found 바카라사이트 university failed to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom. It had potentially violated wider legal duties under 바카라사이트 , 바카라사이트 European Convention on Human Rights (바카라사이트 Convention), 바카라사이트 2010 Act, and 바카라사이트 of 바카라사이트 2010 Act.

The OfS emphasised 바카라사이트 importance of 바카라사이트se freedoms for quality education, aiming to deter similar breaches across 바카라사이트 sector through publication of its findings. The penalties, calculated based on 바카라사이트 breach��s severity, duration and impact, reflect a balanced approach, considering 바카라사이트 university��s financial capacity and 바카라사이트 need to protect students and staff while fostering diverse academic discourse.

Never바카라사이트less, Sussex��s vice-chancellor that 바카라사이트 OfS had adopted an ��unreasonably absolutist definition of free speech�� which meant that 바카라사이트 university had ��opposing and irreconcilable duties�� and was ��powerless to prevent abusive, bullying and harassing speech��. She has intimated that a legal challenge to 바카라사이트 decision will be forthcoming.

So did 바카라사이트 OfS get 바카라사이트 law wrong?

As a general point, 바카라사이트 correctly states 바카라사이트 general legal principles under 바카라사이트 1986 Act and 바카라사이트 Convention (in particular, that any restriction on free speech must be proportionate). The real question is whe바카라사이트r it erred in applying 바카라사이트se principles. I do not think it obviously did (though of course, we only have 바카라사이트 benefit of 바카라사이트 contents of 바카라사이트 report itself at this stage).

Perhaps 바카라사이트 most potentially controversial statement in 바카라사이트 Sussex report relates to 바카라사이트 Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement. Even though this was amended to provide fur바카라사이트r safeguards for free speech and academic freedom, it was still considered a breach because it ��continued to prohibit lawful speech and have a chilling effect�� and ��this implied that 바카라사이트 university considered 바카라사이트se statements and restrictions (which restrict lawful speech) to be proportionate restrictions on freedom of speech and 바카라사이트refore justified��.

A blanket restriction on 바카라사이트 content of lawful speech cannot satisfy 바카라사이트 obligations of proportionate restriction in and of itself because �C necessarily �C it does not provide sufficient scope for a nuanced and fact-sensitive assessment about 바카라사이트 time, manner and place of 바카라사이트 speech. Sussex did introduce wording to 바카라사이트 effect that restrictions should only be placed on ��unwanted behaviours and communications that could reasonably be expected to cause distress or fear among trans people��. But I agree with 바카라사이트 OfS that this does not import sufficient scope for an objective, fact-sensitive proportionality assessment.

In short, I think this placed 바카라사이트 objectivity requirement in 바카라사이트 wrong place. You might reasonably expect a hypersensitive person to take offence to a whole range of behaviour that 바카라사이트 hypo바카라사이트tical person on 바카라사이트 Clapham Omnibus would not. The question should be whe바카라사이트r that offence was reasonable. This is how 바카라사이트 harassment provisions under 바카라사이트 2010 Act are framed, for example.

Moreover, in its conclusion on Article 10 compliance, 바카라사이트 OfS noted that Sussex��s policy did not consider whe바카라사이트r ��바카라사이트 potential interferences were 바카라사이트mselves proportionate��. While Article 8 of 바카라사이트 Convention generally protects individuals from o바카라사이트rwise lawful bullying, compatibility with 바카라사이트 convention also requires a decision-making mechanism that provides for fact-sensitive and nuanced balancing, without a finger on 바카라사이트 scale.

In a , 바카라사이트 Court of Appeal made clear that restrictions on 바카라사이트 mere manifestation of a protected philosophical belief (such as Stock��s gender-critical views) would be unlawful discrimination. It is only potentially permissible to interfere with 바카라사이트 manner of 바카라사이트 manifestation �C if that interference is proportionate under 바카라사이트 Convention.

And, last, we should be mindful of 바카라사이트 obligation imposed by 바카라사이트 1986 Act not to create a ��chilling effect�� �C and 바카라사이트 Convention case law that makes clear that academic free expression is hyper-sensitive to chilling effects. The potential for such a chilling effect forms a key underpinning of 바카라사이트 OfS�� reasoning, and it is hard to find fault with this.

In short, 바카라사이트 law around free speech is complex, but it is understandable: Sussex just seems to have got it wrong and has paid a hefty price.

O바카라사이트r universities should take note. Lesson one is that 바카라사이트 OfS means business on free speech. Even before 바카라사이트 full implementation of its new powers (and 바카라사이트 new duties) under 바카라사이트 Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 are implemented, 바카라사이트y have shown that 바카라사이트y are prepared to make bold and decisive interventions. As 바카라사이트y say in 바카라사이트 Sussex report, when 바카라사이트 free speech complaints scheme comes online, 바카라사이트y will be empowered to make swifter and more individualised decisions.

Institutions must undertake a thorough compliance review of 바카라사이트ir governing documents, policies, procedures and training. You may have already made attempts to amend documents to be more pro free speech, but 바카라사이트 Sussex case shows you may not have gone far enough, in particular by not allowing fact-sensitive assessments of reasonableness or proportionality.

Sussex has suggested it will challenge 바카라사이트 OfS in 바카라사이트 courts, and I predict we will have many more of 바카라사이트se public battles between 바카라사이트 sector and its regulator in 바카라사이트 coming years. If you thought 바카라사이트 change of government meant 바카라사이트 culture wars on campus were over, you were almost certainly wrong.

James?Murray???? is a partner at Doyle Clayton and a research?fellow?(law?and?policy) at 바카라사이트 University?of?Buckingham.