Only days before it was due to come into force, the education secretary said she had decided to “stop further commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, in order to consider options, including its repeal”.
Bridget Phillipson also announced major changes to the work of the higher education regulator in England, the Office for Students (OfS), in order to prioritise financial stability in the sector, as many universities struggle in the face of a mounting financial crisis.
The legislation, which faced bitter opposition from the point of its inception, required universities and student unions to take “reasonable steps” to promote free speech, or face sanctions by the regulator including possible fines.
Phillipson said the legislation was not fit for purpose and risked imposing heavy burdens on institutions. “For too long, universities have been a political battlefield and treated with contempt, rather than as a public good, distracting people from the core issues they face.”
She said the government remained “absolutely committed” to freedom of speech and academic freedom, adding: “This legislation could expose students to harm and appalling hate speech on campuses.
“That is why I have quickly ordered this legislation to be stopped so that we can take a view on next steps and protect everyone’s best interests, working closely with a refocussed OfS.”
Phillipson’s decision was welcomed by many in the sector who disputed the previous government’s narrative of a freedom of speech crisis in universities, and its claims that “cancel culture” and “no platforming” were undermining academic freedom. In sharp contrast to Tory claims, a survey of students by the OfS last year found nearly nine in 10 students in England felt free to express their opinions and beliefs.
The education secretary’s announcement coincided with the publication of an independent review of the OfS that concluded the regulator must reduce its strategic objectives to focus on monitoring financial sustainability in the sector, while also ensuring quality, protecting public money and regulating in the interests of students.
The lead reviewer, Sir David Behan, who was formerly the head of the Care Quality Commission, was also confirmed as the new interim chair of the OfS after the departure earlier this month of James Wharton, a former Conservative MP who ran Boris Johnson’s Tory leadership campaign in 2019.
She said the government remained “absolutely committed” to freedom of speech and academic freedom, adding: “This legislation could expose students to harm and appalling hate speech on campuses.
Complete tautology. It is not in a students interest to be protected from the world. Not in a university.
This may not have been the correct instrument, but universities shouldn’t be scared of debating the less acceptable viewpoints in society. Understanding why, for example, Trump or Farage, gets traction with a segment of society means you need to listen to that segment. If we isolate our best and brightest from it we will never solve the problems.
I’m choosing to interpret this in good faith.
Best to start here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45447938
But ultimately the Tories bill had nothing to do with protecting free speech. It’s purpose was simply to give unpopular, right wing speakers a universal defense to enforce themselves on universities, and to continue the perverse idea that a party who had already been in power for 8 years was somehow being persecuted and oppressed.
Before this bill, Universities could still book anyone they want, and equally sections of the students can choose to protest against the speaker. The organisers could choose whether to ignore the protest, or otherwise. If they decided to remove the speaker - for example, because of past comments unknown to the organiser at the time - that’s their choice.
No organisation is required to give anyone a platform, and any invitation can be revoked.
That’s how it is, and how it should be.
Yeah, I find it strange that universities should need a freedom of speech law specifically for them if there is already freedom of speech everywhere.
When the conservatives talk about freedom of speech they mean the freedom to say what they want and for everyone else to have to just take it.
The freedom of speech that we enjoy everywhere else has nothing to do with them. They often like to conflate “freedom of speech” with “freedom from responsibility”.
Well said
Yeah, there’s no freedom to talk back in that bill.
When the conservatives talk about freedom of speech they mean the freedom to say what they want and for everyone else to have to just take it.
Uh, yes. Conservatives have a right to their values and views, they have a right to express them, and you have no right to prevent them or to threaten them with violence for doing so.
Funnily enough, everyone has a right to free speech, not just people you agree with.
Oh don’t be a disingenuous arse.
The conservatives are already protected by free speech laws, didn’t need to introduce new ones that favor them and allow them to say hurtful things and get away with it. If they want to say awful things on their own platforms, then that’s their prerogative, but the universities are under no requirement to give them a platform.
Oh no, not “saying hurtful things”! How terrible! However will we cope with people “saying hurtful things”?
How about actually addressing the comment I made rather than making supercilious remarks?
They don’t need a new special law they’re already is a general purpose law that is working perfectly. The conservatives don’t like the way it currently works because the way it currently works means they face backlash from their comments. That’s their problem though.
Everyone else has a right to tell them (and you) they’re wrong. Deal with it, snowflake
You: We’re just telling him we disagree with his political views!
Also you:
Do I have to use milkshake or can I use something more… permanent?
Do you make a habit of going around making threats of violence against public political figures?
When they’re fascists I have no qualms about doing so, especially when they’re entirely theoretical and could never happen anyway because Farrage is too much of a coward to eve risk going near members of the public who don’t like him
It’s also true that you have no obligation to invite them, just because they feel left out.
“Freedom of Speech” is an Orwellian title. The real intent of the legislation was to attack academic freedom. For example, a climate conference could be forced to provide a platform to oil-company shills, and in principle, a discussion on astronomy could be required to bring in some flat-earthers.
Ah, so paving the way to create a sort of ‘false centre’ or whatever its called
If you think that forcing students to give a platform to the EDL is going to improve civil discourse, perhaps you need to think that through a bit more. The legislation was a troll’s charter. It was never about free speech, it was about the ruling party controlling discourse within the universities.
