“In determining the procedures to be adopted under Statutes VII.3 and 4, the Council shall apply the following guiding principles: (1) to uphold the right of any member of staff to express political, religious, social and professional views, both privately and in public, provided that this is within the law and is done explicitly in his or her own name and not in that of the University; (2) to ensure that academic staff have freedom, within the law, to carry out teaching and research, including the publication of the outcomes of research, in a way which questions and tests established ideas and received wisdom, and presents controversial or unpopular points of view, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges; (3) to enable the University to provide education, promote learning and engage in research efficiently and economically, while seeking, so far as practicable and consistent with that aim, to maintain staff in employment…”
“1. The University breached condition E1 in that the requirement in the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Statement, up to16 August 2022 , that “any materials within relevant courses and modules will positively represent trans people and trans lives” was inconsistent with the principles of freedom of speech within the law and academic freedom. 2. The University recognises that the freedom of speech Code of Practice and Trans and Non-Binary Equality Statement could have stated more clearly that they were subject to the rights to freedom of speech and academic freedom. 3. The OfS no longer has concerns about the University’s compliance with conditions E1 or E2.”
“I. Academic freedom: Academic staff at an English higher education provider 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 they may have at the provider. … VII. Freedom of speech: The governing body takes such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured within the provider.”
“3. This guidance is in three main sections. 4. Section 1 says what we mean by ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘academic freedom’. 5. Section 2 sets out a three-step framework for assessing compliance with the ‘secure’ duty. These steps apply to any measure or decision that might affect speech or types of speech. The steps are: a. Step 1: Is the speech ‘within the law’? The guidance sets out what this means and gives examples of laws that make speech unlawful. b. Step 2: Are there any ‘reasonably practicable steps’ to secure the speech? If yes, take those steps. Do not restrict the speech. The guidance illustrates factors that are likely or unlikely to affect what is ‘reasonably practicable’. c. Step 3: Are any restrictions ‘prescribed by law’ and proportionate under the European Convention on Human Rights? The guidance sets out that any restrictions on speech must be compatible with these requirements, if indeed there are no reasonably practicable steps to secure it.” a. Step 1: Is the speech ‘within the law’? The guidance sets out what this means and gives examples of laws that make speech unlawful. b. Step 2: Are there any ‘reasonably practicable steps’ to secure the speech? If yes, take those steps. Do not restrict the speech. The guidance illustrates factors that are likely or unlikely to affect what is ‘reasonably practicable’. c. Step 3: Are any restrictions ‘prescribed by law’ and proportionate under the European Convention on Human Rights? The guidance sets out that any restrictions on speech must be compatible with these requirements, if indeed there are no reasonably practicable steps to secure it.”
“This Policy Statement is intended to promote the fair and equal treatment of trans people. That is compatible with the University’s obligation to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers (as required bysection 43 of the Education (No.2) Act 1986 ), and the requirement to have regard to the need to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to (a) question and test received wisdom and (b) put forward new ideas including controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges at the University (as required bysection 202 of the Education Reform Act 1988 ). For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Policy Statement should be taken to justify sanctioning academic staff for questioning or testing received wisdom or putting forward new ideas including controversial or unpopular opinions within the law, nor should this Policy Statement be taken to justify disproportionate restrictions on freedom of speech. Any person concerned that their rights of academic freedom or freedom of speech have been unjustifiably restricted may lodge a complaint.”
“2(c) The curriculum shall not rely on or seek to reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people unless such reliance or seeking to reinforce is in accordance with paragraph 3 of this policy statement… 2(f) Transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying 2 (e.g. name-calling/ derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures.3 After consideration of its form and contents, harassing material (e.g. written materials, graffiti or recordings) that is found objectively to be abusive, bullying, or harassing will be removed from University premises… Footnote 1 This policy statement wording is based on the Joint agreement on guidelines for transgender equality in employment in further education colleges (Association of Colleges et al, 2005). Footnote 2 We use the term “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying” to mean unwanted behaviours and communications that could reasonably be expected to cause distress or fear among trans people. This definition is objective and replicates the definition in the Protection fromHarassment Act 1997 , as set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Footnote 3 Including the University Statutes and Regulations.”
“the provider’s governing documents must uphold the public interest governance conditions that are applicable to the provider”
“The court’s task, within the permissible bounds of interpretation, is to give effect to Parliament’s purpose. So the controversial provisions should be read in the context of the statute as a whole, and the statute as a whole should be read in the historical context of the situation which led to its enactment.” 11 The general approach of focusing on the words which Parliament has used in a provision is justified by the principle that those are the words which Parliament has chosen to express the purpose of the legislation and by the expertise which the drafters of legislation bring to their task. But where there is sufficient doubt about the specific meaning of the words used which the court must resolve, the indicators of the legislature’s purpose outside the provision in question, including the external aids described in para 30 of R (O) quoted above, must be given significant weight. As Lord Sales JSC has stated in an extra-judicial writing, “sometimes the purpose for which legislative intervention was required may be the very prominent focus for the legislative activity which follows from it, and thus may frame in a particularly strong way the context in which that activity takes place” (see “The role of purpose in legislative interpretation: inescapable but problematic necessity”, Presentation at the Oxford University and University of Notre Dame Seminar on Public Law Theory: Topics in Legal Interpretation,19 September 2024 ). Such aids can explain the meaning of a statutory provision which is open to doubt and can themselves alert the court to ambiguity in the provision, but they cannot displace the meanings conveyed by the clear and unambiguous words of a provision construed in the context of the statute as a whole. 12 Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead’s important constitutional insight in Spath Holme, that citizens with the help of their advisers should be able to understand statutes, points towards an interpretation that is clear and predictable. As Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC stated in Imperial Tobacco Ltd v Lord Advocate 2013 SC (UKSC) 153, at para 14: “The best way of ensuring that a coherent, stable and workable outcome is achieved is to adopt an approach to the meaning of a statute that is constant and predictable. This will be achieved if the legislation is construed according to the ordinary meaning of the words used.”” “The court’s task, within the permissible bounds of interpretation, is to give effect to Parliament’s purpose. So the controversial provisions should be read in the context of the statute as a whole, and the statute as a whole should be read in the historical context of the situation which led to its enactment.” “The best way of ensuring that a coherent, stable and workable outcome is achieved is to adopt an approach to the meaning of a statute that is constant and predictable. This will be achieved if the legislation is construed according to the ordinary meaning of the words used.””
“[a] power conferred in very general terms plainly cannot be relied on to defeat the intention of clear and particular statutory provisions”
“60. The provider failed to provide for reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech within the law because the provider failed, in the [2018/2022/2023] version of the TNBEPS to: a. set out clearly the remit or limits of the restriction on freedom of speech that the [relevant Statement] permitted, in particular by making clear that it did not capture lawful views; and b. ensure adequate effective safeguards for freedom of speech were built into [the 2018/2022/2023] version of the TNBEPS or one of the provider’s other governing documents.”
“Step 1: Is the speech ‘within the law’? … Step 2: Are there any ‘reasonably practicable steps’ to secure the speech? If yes, take those steps. Do not restrict the speech … Step 3: Are any restrictions ‘prescribed by law’ and proportionate under the European Convention on Human Rights?”
“(13) In this Part— references to freedom of speech are to the freedom to impart ideas, opinions or information (referred to inArticle 10(1) of the Convention as it has effect for the purposes of theHuman Rights Act 1998 ) by means of speech, writing or images (including in electronic form).”
"Inferences from later Acts" and "
"I think it is clearly established in Attorney-General v Clarkson[1900] 1 QB 156 that subsequent legislation on the same subject may be looked to in order to see what is the proper construction to be put upon an earlier Act where that earlier Act is ambiguous. I quite agree that subsequent legislation, if it proceed upon an erroneous construction of previous legislation, cannot alter that previous legislation; but if there be any ambiguity in the earlier legislation then the subsequent legislation may fix the proper interpretation which is to be put upon the earlier". 58. The problem here is that the earlier legislation in rule 31(4) is not, I think, ambiguous. It is only if you reason backwards from the later legislation in rule 119 that it appears that it might be.” "
“Findings on breaches and imposition of monetary penalties will act as strong incentives for the provider to address breaches of conditions E1 and E2(i) and ensure compliance in the future in addition to incentivising compliance from other providers” (Annex E, §41). Plainly, the FD cannot be vitiated by reference to a failure to consider a factor which the OfS did consider.”
“By chilling effect, the OfS means the potential for staff and students to self-censor and not speak about/express certain lawful views.”
“The appalling hounding of Kathleen Stock at the University of Sussex is a serious threat to freedom of speech on campus, argues ARIF AHMED”; and the article continued; “The Sussex philosopher Kathleen Stock began writing about the GRA [Gender Recognition Act] in 2018, in academic journals but also on blogs, in comment pieces for the press and so on. She argued (among other things) that there were costs, to people born women, of expanding the category of “woman” to include anyone who calls themselves one. Because of her intervention, Professor Stock has been subject to a sustained campaign of vilification and harassment. Stock’s case is unusual by historical standards. In the past, perhaps even today, the principal threat to academic freedom came from the authorities (state or university). In 1687 James II tried to expel the Fellows of Magdalen College, Oxford, who had resisted his favoured choice for president of that institution; the attempt failed and was one of several disasters that together fatally undermined him. … In Stock’s case though, it was not the state that attacked her; and the university authorities supported her – or, at least, they supported her in the latest, most serious round of protests, having failed to do so previously. But she was subject to abuse and harassment by individuals. Sussex admitted as much in October 2021, though by then police had advised her to avoid her place of work, to employ a bodyguard if she ventured on to campus and to install CCTV outside her home, so it was hardly being controversial. In any case, the upshot was that Stock left her job and in November became a Founding Fellow of the new University of Austin in Texas. The UK regulator of Higher Education, the Office for Students, has now launched an investigation into whether the University of Sussex has “met its obligations for academic freedom and freedom of speech within the law for all students and staff, whatever their views”
'[a]s an institution we must actively play our part in dismantling the systems and structures that lead to racial inequality, disadvantage and under-representation.'