Concerns Government Is Backtracking Over University Free Speech Bill

In this file image, a student arrives for their graduation ceremony at the Royal Festival Hall in London, England, on Oct. 13, 2015. (Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

Cancel culture and free speech experts worry that a government Bill designed to protect speakers at universities has been watered down.

The government has been accused of making concessions to universities over a new law it had drawn up to enable academics and students to take institutions to court for breaching free speech violations.

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is legislation to safeguard free speech at university campuses.

The proposed act of Parliament would impose requirements for universities and student unions to protect freedom of speech, tightening existing legislation to make the promotion of it a statutory duty.

Previously this meant that if universities failed to uphold free speech, they could be taken to court.

Court Action as a Last Resort

However now, critics say that a new amendment now means academics and students will have to rely on a lengthy complaints process at universities with court action as a last resort. Furthermore, persons have to prove they have sustained a loss to bring civil proceedings now.

Talking to the Telegraph, Prof. Jo Phoenix, who was harassed and vilified by colleagues at the Open University for her views on sex and gender, said that the newly proposed process would be “an excellent way that university managers can kick the problem in our universities into the long grass.”

On Twitter, the Free Speech Union said that it agreed and that the “only way to make sure universities uphold the new free speech duties in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is to give aggrieved parties the option of suing them in the county court.”

“Without that, this Bill will make no more difference than the Education (No.2) Act 1986, an Act that imposed a legal duty on universities to uphold free speech, but that was never taken seriously by the sector. Why? Because there was no accompanying enforcement mechanism,” added the FSU.

Eric Kaufmann, professor of Politics, BirkBeck College, London. (Screenshot/NTD)

Eric Kaufmann, a professor of politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, told The Epoch Times by email that “this is a victory for Tory ‘wets’” who want to please the “university sector lobby and their legal advisers.”

Kaufmann is a leading researcher into cancel culture in the world of academia.

“What this does is allow universities to tie plaintiffs up in internal tribunals, ramping up pressure on staff and students who have had their academic freedom violated and placing the onus on them to run the gauntlet of internal kangaroo courts,” he said.

Kaufmann said that “the process is the punishment’ here” and that this will “deter people from challenging orthodoxy.”

“We need the statutory tort to allow people to go around their universities. The proposed system would leave students and staff in the same position they are in now, with a technical right of appeal to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, which is in fact toothless,” he said.

“So the Tories are, despite their failing poll ratings, more interested in pleasing the universities than protecting freedom of speech,” he added.

‘Bureaucratic Consequence’

Dennis Hayes, president of Academics for Academics Freedom (AFAF), told The Epoch Times by email that “constant public exposure of issues and constant public debate will make universities defend free speech.”

He said that having defended the freedom of speech of many academics and students over the years AFAF members were always worried about the “bureaucratic consequences of the proposed legislation.”

“We knew that taking cases through long disciplinary and appeal processes was time-consuming as well as being very demanding and disheartening,” he said.

“The regulator will add another layer to internal complaints procedures that will enmesh academics and students in endless bureaucracy. There is no free speech in these procedures just an attempt to work through a minefield of regulations,” he added.

Hayes said that when someone takes out a complaint, just as when a university invokes a disciplinary procedure, “we move beyond speech into an act.”

“An act that is often covered by internal censorship through confidentiality clauses so that no one knows what is going on,” he said.

“Already we have seen academics and students coming to us after they have become involved in complex complaints procedures. If they had come earlier we would have advised them not to formally complain but to organise a debate. Debating not complaining is the way forward,” said Hayes.

‘Nonsense’

A DfE spokesperson told The Epoch Times by email that to “suggest we are watering the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is nonsense.”

“All the core provisions of the Bill remain as they have always been, to strengthen protections for freedom of speech in higher education. It was always our intention that the tort would be used as a last resort,” he said.

“The Bill will strengthen protections for individuals by creating a new, free complaints scheme, overseen by the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom role in the Office for Students,” he added.

The DfE spokesperson added that the Office for Students will be able to “impose sanctions, including fines, on any university that fails in its duty to protect their students, staff and visiting speakers.”

“Should individuals wish to seek further action after exploring other available routes, they will still be able to bring a claim to the courts,” he said.