The University of Sussex has accused the Office for Students (OfS) of “giving free rein” to “antisemitic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, racist, sexist, and anti-trans speech” as it begins legal action to challenge the regulator’s decision to fine it ?585,000.
Sussex has published its that seeks a judicial review of an OfS ruling in March that found the university breached its free speech duties over the handling of the resignation of gender-critical professor Kathleen Stock.
The regulator found a “chilling effect” arose as a result of the institution’s 2018 trans and non-binary equality policy, which was adopted at the time by several other British universities. The letter, sent to the OfS on 27 March, claims this decision was unlawful and irrational.
Lawyers argue that the OfS is not “empowered to set a public interest governance condition that covers documents” outside of a provider’s governing documents, such as the trans policy in question.
In response to the Ofs’ finding that the university lacked “adequate” management processes to ensure it was operating in accordance with governing documents, the university said the regulator does not “have jurisdiction” to assess this.
Sussex accused the OfS of misinterpreting the law, including what freedom of speech “within the law” means.
The university has also criticised the handling of the investigation, claiming the OfS only interviewed one person – Stock herself – and refused to meet with university representatives, despite their requesting this at least nine times.
blog, Sasha Roseneil, vice-chancellor of the university, expressed concerns about the wider implications of the decision.
“Under the OfS’s ruling, it would seem that universities cannot seek to prevent our curricula from relying on or reinforcing stereotypical assumptions about (for example) Jews or Black people, because to do otherwise could limit lawful speech,” she writes.
“It is, I fear, a charter that risks giving free rein to antisemitic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, racist, sexist, and anti-trans speech and expression in universities, as long as it stays just on the right side of the law.”
The OfS has previously defended itself against this claim. When the case report into Sussex was released, Arif Ahmed, director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the OfS, said, “It is entirely appropriate for universities to pursue equality objectives. But they must take care to do so without curtailing lawful speech and without creating the risk of indirect discrimination against people with protected beliefs.”?
Commenting after the Sussex letter was made public, an OfS spokesperson said the regulator is "confident" in the decisions made and will "vigorously defend any legal action".
"Freedom of speech and academic freedom are foundational principles for higher education," they said. "It’s right to expect universities to comply with their legal and regulatory obligations in this area. Our published case report explains our findings in relation to the University of Sussex and sets out the reasons we concluded it had breached our regulatory requirements."
Roseneil described the decision as “unworkable and highly detrimental” for the whole higher education sector.
Other English universities appear to have begun reviewing their own trans policies in light of the ruling, some of which include similar statements to the ones identified as problematic by the OfS in the Sussex case.
According to Roseneil, the policy was adopted at a time when “thinking about how best to support trans and non-binary people within universities was just beginning” and prior to the adoption of gender-critical beliefs as “protected philosophical beliefs” under the 2010 Equality Act.
James Murray, partner at Doyle Clayton law firm, predicted there could be a "lengthy" legal battle ahead.
"Unless there's a degree of expedition, we might be looking at 12 to 18 months, or more, before we get a judgment in the case," he said. "I don't think universities can wait and see - the size of the fine means that there is too much risk in such an approach; they need to continue reviewing and updating their policies.
"It's also worth remembering this is a decision under the old law, as much of the [The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act] has yet to be activated," he continued. "The OfS is set to publish guidance on compliance with the new law and, given the similarity of the provisions, I think this approach in the Sussex case is a clear signpost of their forceful and strict approach to compliance."
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
