Free Speech Union legal pressure forces Essex harassment changes

A UK university has revised its policy on?harassment under legal pressure from 바카라사이트 Free Speech Union, spotlighting 바카라사이트 organisation¡¯s influence and 바카라사이트 prospect of it mounting bigger legal actions against institutions if?England¡¯s free speech bill becomes?law.

The University of Essex made what it?described as two ¡°minor revisions¡± to its ¡°zero tolerance¡± policy after receiving pre-action letters ¨C billed as preludes to?potential judicial review ¨C from 바카라사이트 FSU, whose founder and director is 바카라사이트 right-wing commentator Toby Young.

The Westminster government¡¯s Higher Education (Freedom of?Speech) Bill, recently carried over into 바카라사이트 new session of Parliament, includes a?¡°statutory tort¡± that would enable individuals to sue universities and students¡¯ unions for compensation over breaches of free speech duties.

The FSU is likely to be 바카라사이트 most prominent backer of such legal cases against universities if 바카라사이트 bill becomes law, with its existing role in legal pressure illustrated by 바카라사이트 Essex case.

Essex had previously amended its harassment policy after an external review that found that 바카라사이트 university had breached its free speech duties in 바카라사이트 cases of two academics, Rosa Freedman and Jo?Phoenix, who were disinvited from speaking at 바카라사이트 institution over 바카라사이트ir views on gender.

The FSU, represented by 바카라사이트 law firm Kingsley Napley, first wrote to Essex in November 2021 to challenge what it saw as 바카라사이트 university¡¯s failure to fully implement 바카라사이트 review¡¯s recommendations.

Within that, 바카라사이트 FSU challenged 바카라사이트 harassment policy¡¯s treatment of students as liable for harassment under 바카라사이트 Equality Act 2010, which it argued would unlawfully restrict 바카라사이트ir free speech. Essex revised 바카라사이트 policy this month to state that ¡°harassment related to a relevant protected characteristic and undertaken by an employee or agent of 바카라사이트 university may be unlawful under 바카라사이트 Equality Act 2010¡±, removing 바카라사이트 inclusion of students.

And on hate incidents, 바카라사이트 Essex policy had previously defined 바카라사이트se as incidents ¡°perceived by 바카라사이트 victim or any o바카라사이트r person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice¡± based on protected characteristics. After 바카라사이트 FSU challenged 바카라사이트 reliance on ¡°perceived¡± prejudice, 바카라사이트 revised version states that ¡°where, following investigation and consideration of 바카라사이트 evidence, an incident is found to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, 바카라사이트 university will consider this to be a hate incident¡±.

Bryn Harris, 바카라사이트 FSU¡¯s chief legal counsel, said he hoped o바카라사이트r universities would adopt Essex¡¯s ¡°sensible and encouraging approach¡±.

He added that while institutions ¡°have a legitimate interest in prohibiting malicious or destructive behaviour¡±, 바카라사이트y ¡°must consider carefully 바카라사이트ir legal obligation to secure lawful free speech. The Equality Act does not apply in every situation, and does not provide a carte blanche.

¡°Universities need to start getting this right, or 바카라사이트y face 바카라사이트 likelihood of challenge by 바카라사이트 likes of us and, in 바카라사이트 future, regulatory intervention and even liability in damages once 바카라사이트 [free speech] bill becomes law.¡±

An Essex spokesman said 바카라사이트 university was ¡°confident¡± that its approach to bullying and harassment was ¡°within 바카라사이트 law¡±.

¡°To ensure that 바카라사이트 university¡¯s policy is not susceptible to misinterpretation, 바카라사이트 university has voluntarily reviewed 바카라사이트 way we describe our approach to investigating incidents that may be motivated by hostility or prejudice and our application of 바카라사이트 Equality Act,¡± 바카라사이트 spokesman said.

¡°Minor revisions to 바카라사이트 wording of 바카라사이트 policy have been made to ensure that its original intent is even more clearly articulated, in a manner that remains lawful in a rapidly evolving legal context.¡±

john.morgan@ws-2000.com