The University of Sussex has been issued a record fine by the English regulator after being accused of breaching its free speech duties over its handling of the resignation of one of its professors, Kathleen Stock.

An investigation by the Office for Students that lasted more than three years has finally concluded, finding that the university¡¯s governing documents ¡°failed to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom, as well as failings in the university¡¯s management and governance processes¡±.

A fine of ?585,000 has been issued ¨C the largest ever handed out by the regulator.

Kathleen Stock left her post at the university after being the subject of various protests by staff and students over her gender-critical views.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

The OfS said it had ¡°seen no evidence to suggest that Professor Stock¡¯s speech during her employment at the university was unlawful¡±.

The regulator concluded that a ¡°chilling effect¡± arose as a result of the institution's trans and non-binary equality policy statement, first published in 2018, which led students and staff to ¡°self-censor¡± to avoid disciplinary action ¡°for expressing lawful views¡±.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

The OfS identified four specific statements in the policy that ¡°restricted lawful speech¡± and said the university failed to include safeguards to protect the expression of legally protected beliefs, including gender-critical views.

According to the regulator, the university lacked ¡°adequate and effective¡± management and governance arrangements to ensure it operated in accordance with governing documents, with the OfS identifying ¡°a pattern of decisions taken at the university to adopt and/or revise policies without proper delegated authority¡±.

The case preceded new duties being handed to the OfS that will allow it to investigate free speech complaints of individuals and so the investigation focused on the university¡¯s compliance with the OfS¡¯s regulatory requirements, rather than the particular circumstances relating to Professor Stock.

Arif Ahmed, director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the OfS, described the findings as ¡°significant and serious breaches of the OfS¡¯s requirements¡±.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

¡°Substantial monetary penalties are appropriate for the scale of wrongdoing we have found,¡± he continued. ¡°However, we have significantly discounted the monetary penalties we initially calculated on this occasion to reflect that this is the first case of its type we have dealt with.¡±

According to the case report, the maximum penalty permitted was??4,647,177 ¨C 2 per cent of the university's 2023-24 qualifying income.?

In a robust response, Sussex¡¯s vice-chancellor Sasha Roseneil said the ¡°so-called?investigation¡± had been ¡°flawed and politically motivated¡± and warned that the ¡°implications for the higher education sector could be dire¡±.

¡°The OfS?investigation should have been short, focused and straightforward. But for those at Sussex who spent thousands of hours responding to the?many OfS requests for information, the experience has instead been Kafkaesque,¡± she writes on the?.?

ÍøÆØÃÅ

The findings will make it ¡°virtually impossible¡± for universities to protect students and staff from ¡°abuse, harassment, or bullying,¡± Roseneil said in a separate statement shared by the university, in which she confirmed that the institution would legally challenge the regulator.?

¡°The way the OfS has conducted this investigation has been completely unacceptable, its findings are egregious and concocted, and the fine that is being imposed on Sussex is wholly disproportionate," she said.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

¡°After three and a half years of trawling thousands of pages of paperwork, whilst never interviewing anyone employed by the University, the behaviour of the OfS sets a dangerous precedent and constitutes serious regulatory overreach in service of a politically motivated inquiry.¡±

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com