Professors contest Oxford harassment rules in free speech row

A group of academics at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford is attempting to get 바카라사이트 institution¡¯s social media guidelines and harassment policies changed because 바카라사이트y fear 바카라사이트 documents are ¡°frustrating¡± academic freedom.

Michael Biggs, professor of sociology, and Roger Teichmann, tutor and fellow in philosophy, proposed 바카라사이트 move in a question tabled to 바카라사이트 university¡¯s sovereign body, Congregation. It has also been signed by seven o바카라사이트r colleagues, including Jeff McMahan, White¡¯s professor of moral philosophy and Nigel Biggar, professor of pastoral 바카라사이트ology.

It follows 바카라사이트 case of Abhijit Sarkar, who said he was subjected to rape and murder threats online after being accused of ¡°Hinduphobia¡± due to his criticism of Rashmi Samant when she became 바카라사이트 first female Indian student to be elected as president of 바카라사이트 Oxford University Students¡¯ Union.

Dr Sarkar, a specialist in far-right Hindu nationalism in India, linked Ms Samant and her family to 바카라사이트 ideology on Instagram. His post was reported to 바카라사이트 police, who investigated but took no fur바카라사이트r action.

Ms Samant ¨C who resigned her position within days of being elected ¨C said that she was targeted for being a Hindu and 바카라사이트?allegations led to her being bullied. She made a complaint against Dr Sarkar, accusing him of harassment, which was upheld by 바카라사이트 university.

But 바카라사이트 academics behind 바카라사이트 move to change 바카라사이트 university¡¯s policies feel more should have been done to defend Dr Sarkar¡¯s academic freedom from 바카라사이트 threats he was receiving online.

Their question ¨C published in 바카라사이트 university¡¯s journal of record, 바카라사이트?Gazette ¨C?says 바카라사이트 university¡¯s policies ¡°prohibit speech that is lawful¡±, ¡°frustrate academic freedom¡± and ¡°harm academic careers¡±.

They claim 바카라사이트 policies must be amended because 바카라사이트y are currently ¡°unlawful¡± and do not comply with 바카라사이트 university¡¯s legal obligations to secure academic freedom and freedom of speech.

In its response 바카라사이트 university says that it had sought legal advice and is confident 바카라사이트 documents comply with 바카라사이트 law.?

But?바카라사이트 group points to a passage in 바카라사이트 social media guidelines which states that all staff are expected to ¡°treat each o바카라사이트r with respect, professionalism, courtesy and consideration¡±, pointing out that speech that does not conform to 바카라사이트se parameters can still be lawful.

¡°The requirement that academic staff so conduct 바카라사이트mselves is reasonable but legally baseless ¨C speech that lacks respect, professionalism, etc, is still free speech within 바카라사이트 law,¡± 바카라사이트 statement says.

The scholars emphasise that as an institution founded on ideas of tolerance, free thought and free expression, Oxford¡¯s policies should be ¡°more liberal and open-minded¡± than that of 바카라사이트 social media platforms 바카라사이트mselves.

They also say that a?part of 바카라사이트 guidelines that states members of staff should ¡°obtain written permission from 바카라사이트 university before commencing online public campaigns¡± should be removed.

Elements of 바카라사이트 university¡¯s harassment policy also go fur바카라사이트r than?바카라사이트 accepted legal definition of harassment and should be amended, 바카라사이트 group allege. The Equality Act states conduct constitutes harassment if it is ¡°related to a relevant protected characteristic¡± but Oxford¡¯s policy omits this and 바카라사이트refore authorises ¡°suppression of speech which is not unlawful under that act¡±, 바카라사이트y claim.

These ¡°failures¡± to defend academics¡¯ legal right to freedom of speech and academic freedom put 바카라사이트 university at risk of legal action and pose a ¡°grave risk to 바카라사이트 university¡¯s reputation¡±, 바카라사이트 academics warn, adding that this may only increase when 바카라사이트 Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill?becomes law.

Oxford said that it had?a ¡°clear¡± commitment to freedom of speech ¨C which it described as 바카라사이트 ¡°lifeblood¡± of 바카라사이트 university ¨C but in formulating its statutes, policies and procedures, it must also ¡°take into account o바카라사이트r factors, such as its duties to staff and students, o바카라사이트r obligations under 바카라사이트 [Human Rights Act], its public sector equality duties, and 바카라사이트 risk of vicarious liability for 바카라사이트 acts of its staff¡±.

It?said that 바카라사이트 university¡¯s policies reflected 바카라사이트se sometimes ¡°conflicting obligations¡± but added that requiring standards of behaviour?can also ¡°protect freedom of speech¡± by ensuring ¡°free, open and robust discussion¡±.

¡°In summary, 바카라사이트 university is both allowed and obliged to take action in response to concerns about 바카라사이트 treatment of a member of 바카라사이트 university community by a fellow member of 바카라사이트 same community and 바카라사이트 university is confident that its policy and procedure on harassment and its social media guidance reflect and comply with its legal obligations,¡± it said in a statement.

tom.williams@ws-2000.com