Lots of legal changes unfolded through the year 2023, with new powers bestowed upon the Office for Students (OfS) to oversee Freedom of Speech for Universities in England. It’s been all over the press but what does it mean for our teaching and learning practice? In this blog, I pull together some observations and guidance on freedom of expression in HE.
New Direction
Let’s start with who is in charge of how the OfS tackles its new remit. Arif Ahmed is now Director for Academic Freedom and providing leadership in this area for OfS. Ahmed summarises what OfS is concerned with as “…the protection of legal speech. That is, if your expression or view is within the law then it falls within the scope of our protections. If it’s not then it doesn’t” (quoted in the Guardian). He also asserts that he wishes to remain politically neutral and not to partake in “culture wars” (for discussion see Wonkhe). There will be a new complaints process whereby complaints can be submitted by anyone, so that includes staff, students, invited speakers, and members of the public. Those making a complaint “will be able to bring claims to court if they feel they have suffered loss as a result of their free speech rights being unlawfully restricted” (Government EducationBlog). If complaints are upheld, the OfS has the power to issue fines.
The Act
This all follows on the heels of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. The act pushes for promotion of freedom of speech and academic freedom. Much of the substantive actions resulting from the Act are implemented through the OfS. The Act also specifies some rules around transparency of overseas funding like endowments and research grants, as well as the use of non-disclosure agreements. A new question has been added to the NSS asking final year students for their views on free speech.
Issues & Guidance
Universities UK created guidance on how to respond to the Act which includes details of the above and suggestions for changes to processes and policies, but there is little here to guide on teaching and learning practice directly. The Policy Institute (KCL p.18) has a few more practical ideas, some of the most effective are seen as:
- Training for students and staff on how to listen actively to the views and opinions of others, even if we disagree with them.
- Campus-wide events that allow both sides of a topic or issue to be shared (rather than debated), and both parties to be equally heard.
- Classroom discussion guidelines that encourage all views to be shared.
- Designing classrooms for open discussion by, for instance, seating people in small groups around tables rather than in lecture-theatre style seating.
- Student training events on the importance of allowing diverse perspectives to be heard, including those that are unpopular or that some find offensive.
These suggestions take the overarching concept of promoting freedom of speech into tangible action. It is good to see classroom space being considered here, along with communication and a respect for difference. I like the idea of classroom discussion guidelines that can be created in anticipation of particularly thorny topic areas. There are, perhaps, some problems even within such a list. For example, it is almost a trope to conceive of every issue as one with two equal sides with equal moral weight – a both-sides approach to some issues can actually create more problems. Helpfully, the document explores some of the suggestions through detailed case studies.
Perhaps more importantly for the big picture perspective is how the Policy Institute asserts:
First, we need to recognise the highly charged and polarised environment in which the new legislation will be operating. We cannot see the debate and actions in universities as disconnected from wider “culture war” narratives, where perceptions among university students are shaped by external coverage as well as direct experience, and a number of actors are incentivised to exaggerate or downplay the extent of the challenge. This should, for example, make us particularly cautious in how and when legal measures are employed, as fractious, high-profile court cases may themselves shape perceptions and encourage division rather than improve outcomes on free speech.
Indeed, the very existence of the Act and the responses to it are intimately linked to current political shifts and trends in a highly polarised environment. This is likely to be a contentious and high-profile space for the foreseeable future.
For their part, OfS point to the resources of the Equality and Human Rights Commission for guidance on Freedom of Speech in HE in England and Wales. Much of this guidance is similar to that of Universities UK. Some differences include specific reference to Prevent Duty and page 32 provides a decision-making tool about hosting events. Next, a list of ten ‘reasonable’ risk mitigations are suggested though, again, these are tailored to events and not teaching and learning contexts. Some demand extra resource (like security), while others may be perceived as too controlling or onerous, while others are somewhat ambiguous. There is also a section exploring no-platforming, protests, safe-spaces and trigger-warnings (mostly focusing on SU contexts). Overall, however, this guidance does not provide much in support for day-to-day teaching and learning contexts.
Aside from fears around uncertainty for how this will all play out there are other concerns. Independent think tank HEPI, for example, draws attention to how new regulation will result in more costs for universities along with a somewhat ambiguous statutory obligation to promote Freedom of Speech. From my own reading, it seems that more thought is placed on public-facing lectures and potential protests, rather than the content of our curricula.
What’s the official stance at the University of Bristol?
The University published an up-to-date policy one-pager grounded in the perspective of human rights. This reflects the University’s Statutes “to ensure that members of academic staff at the University have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges”.
The University also provides specific guidance for students on issues of protest and freedom of speech – it’s a great resource to signpost to as needed.
What next?
As OfS develops their thinking and gets moving on their new remit, many changes will follow and likely lots of press coverage in THE, WONKHE and national newspapers. I expect that most of the news coverage will fall into the tumult of the concocted culture wars and center on high-profile guest speakers, rather than what’s happening in our classrooms and labs.
Over time, more guidance may emerge for teaching and learning practice. I’ll keep an eye out and update the blog as relevant – please do get in touch with suggestions for what we should look at. BILT is always on the hunt for new case studies too – get in touch to share your experiences!
Further resources
- AdvanceHE discussion podcast and general guidance
- Professor David Ruebain’s blog exploring some examples and reflecting on current issues
- Find out the official details of the Act online here: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2862/publications
- Find out more about Arif Ahmed thoughts via OfS’s blog on his inaugural speech
- OfS report on its consultation
