Key Facts

• Professor Stephen Whittle is from Manchester Metropolitan University.
• He has been an activist for nearly 50 years and a trans rights advocate for nearly 30 years.
• The Bill could provide an additional chilling effect on potential protesters by making it harder to express alternative viewpoints.
• The speaker has never felt unsupported by Manchester Metropolitan University regarding her freedom of speech.
• Universities should improve methods to promote academic events beyond sending bland emails.
• Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary discussions are important for considering the world we want to live in.
• Professor Whittle reviewed a piece of research related to detransitioning young people which she deemed unsound.
• The professor mentions a PhD proposal that was not approved due to lack of proper processes and political motivations.
• There is concern about the insularity in university promotions preventing challenging researchers from getting opportunities.
• The legislation focuses on how universities promote free speech and what they do to stop other people disturbing this space.
• Universities already have an obligation in relation to freedom of speech, but the bill creates an additional obligation that may narrow overall freedom of speech.
• Professor Whittle highlights concerns about potential conflict with existing Equality Act 2010 legislation regarding harassment, abuse, and threats of violence.
• Professor Whittle feels her career has been impacted due to being transgender.
• Many academics feel insecure due to short-term contracts and lack of tenure.
• Insecure employment leads to pressure on academics to conform, affecting their freedom of speech.
• Judith Cummins is chairing a Committee session on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.
• Matt Western declares his wife works at a university.
• Kevan Jones inquires about the necessity of repeated declarations during sessions.
• Smita Jamdar advises that the statutory tort may lead to more legal actions and resource expenditure for universities due to potential frivolous claims.
• There are concerns about the complexity involved in pursuing compensation through multiple bodies including the Office for Students, Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, and Charity Commission.
• The Bill proposes a 'new statutory tort' as an important backstop but does not require exhaustion of internal processes before seeking redress.
• Judicial review is currently the main route for individuals to seek redress, though it can be expensive.
• Judicial review can be less expensive than civil proceedings in some cases.
• Students have an alternative route through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for internal process complaints.
• The statutory duty to promote free speech is seen as a positive aspect but may not address cultural concerns around expressing unpopular views.
• There are worries about risk aversion and potential chilling effects on activities due to fear of litigation.
• The Office for Students (OfS) is protected by absolute privilege in the legislation.
• Smita Jamdar mentions an example from local government inquiries where reports have never had absolute privilege and individuals retain the right to sue.
• The phrase 'reasonably practicable' has a high legal threshold, beyond what is reasonable, and must be determined with particular regard to the importance of free speech.
• Student unions may face financial risks due to the Bill's potential chilling effect on autonomy.
• Liability could apply to formal societies within student unions, but informal gatherings might not be covered.
• Legal disputes could become expensive and complicated for both claimants and defendants.
• Academic freedom in UK universities is currently protected through university charters and instruments.
• The Bill may narrow existing protections for academic freedom.
• Concerns exist about the lack of appeal mechanisms for decisions made by the OfS director under the Bill.
• The speaker is Tom Simpson, an associate professor and co-author of Policy Exchange papers on academic freedom.
• Approximately 75% of philosophers internationally identify as left-leaning, with 11% moderate centrists and 14% conservative.
• A study found that 55% of left-leaning academics are willing to discriminate against right-wing colleagues in job appointments, refereeing, and grant applications.
• The speaker notes that 75% of staff or academics in universities are left-leaning.
• Right-leaning academics are more likely to feel the need for self-censorship; 32% refrain from airing views in front of colleagues.
• The Bill aims to provide persuasive measures rather than binding judgments on individual cases.
• The Bill will create a director for free speech who plays a co-ordinating role within the Office for Students (OfS).
• The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) guidance from 2019 carefully outlines how the section 43 freedom of speech duty should be implemented in various scenarios.
• There is concern about universities needing greater clarification on managing freedom of speech versus rights under the Equality Act.
• The Bill changes the emphasis from individual actions within universities to the responsibilities of governing bodies.
• Clause 2 covers staff, members, students, and visiting speakers but may not explicitly cover affiliated academics such as visiting fellows or emeritus professors.
• Academic freedom includes teaching autonomy, institutional criticism, and the ability to publish and disseminate results without undue interference.
• Kevan Jones argues that defining discrimination based on political views is more challenging than racial or gender-based discrimination.
• Thomas Simpson cites examples from Cambridge University regarding dismissals and visiting fellowship invitations, highlighting a lack of due process.
• The bill aims to secure that job applicants are not adversely affected because they have exercised their freedom within the law.
• The past five years have been particularly challenging in terms of restrictions on academic freedom.
• Professor Eric Kaufmann is better positioned to provide data on the trend, as it is his speciality.
• Changing the incentive structure for university administrators and affirming legislative support for academic freedom are necessary steps.
• The Free Speech Union receives funding from members and donors.
• About 30% of the FSU's cases involve higher education disputes and another 30% are employment-related disputes.
• Dr Bryn Harris is the chief legal counsel at the Free Speech Union.
• Universities typically include clauses in their statutes protecting academic freedom.
• The OfS has handled fewer than five event cancellations in universities over two years (2018-2020).
• Cases brought to attention by the OfS include WhatsApp messages from students on campus.
• Dr Abhijit Sarkar, an Oxford University scholar, was disciplined by his university after posting on Instagram about far-right politics.
• Dr Sarkar received death threats from individuals demanding his removal from India.
• A gender critical feminist academic suffered mental health deterioration due to harassment and was managed out through a sham redundancy.
• The term 'reasonably practicable' largely replicates wording from a 1986 duty.
• There is uncertainty about how courts will interpret this in light of the Human Rights Act and Equality Act.
• Universities could face liability issues if they do not secure freedom of speech or inadvertently infringe on protected characteristics.
• Universities need clarity on how the Equality Act applies in the academic context.
• The risk of breaching the Bill is low but there could be borderline cases where it is difficult to sort out conflicts.
• Dr Harris suggests that universities should take a more pragmatic approach to their liabilities.
• Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Labour) closed the Committee's questioning session.
• Next sitting scheduled for Monday 13 September at half-past Three o’clock.