University of Sussex fined £585,000 by Office for Students

It is batshit. And goes against principles of democracy where you can criticise anything or anyone if there is a public interest argument! A known conflict over rights absolutely falls under that remit.

Key phrase:
Freedom of speech within the law is protected. Unlawful speech is not protected. However, there is no need to point to a specific legal basis for speech. Instead, the starting point is that speech is permitted unless restricted by law.
Free speech includes lawful speech that may be offensive or hurtful to some. Speech that amounts to unlawful harassment or unlawful incitement to hatred or violence (for instance) does not constitute free speech within the law and is not protected.

So basically you can say anything if you have a legitimate public interest to say, if you can demonstrate / explain a legitimate concern. This needs evidenced examples of issues. In this case, we all know there's a legitimate concern that women's sex based rights under the equality act are being harmed AND there are potential harms for lesbians under both sex based rights and homosexual rights AND there are potential harms for autistic people under disability rights AND there are potential harm for anyone who identifies as trans. Stocks argument about lesbians is the particularly compelling one - how do you protect lesbian rights if you have to accept a women can have a penis? It makes no sense and is legally and morally incomprehensible.

It's literally the public debate we've been having that's been upheld on numerous occasions as being valid.

Even if your argument is 'unlawful' you still can make a public interest argument if you can come up with a public interest argument about why the law is wrong and unfair if you can highlight an injustice which is a public scandal. Call this the newspaper escape clause if you will. The key parts are legitimate concern and public interest - which highlight and demonstrate harms to society (basically there's enough broad public support for your argument - that's where the majority of people recognising and believing sex is real is fundamental even if legally not explicitly protected which we now have recognised).

You can't harass and target people over it - so you can't send millions of letters to a trans charity or bother a trans forum. But in a group for LGBTQ people, it's fair...

The 'chilling effect' is basically wanting no debate, but that ship has firmly sailed.

Legally this is not new territory. It's basically the same principles that's been in place for years over what you can and can't say in a newspaper without getting successfully sued for liable and defamation. Newspapers are supposed to uphold freedom of speech principles in a democracy by holding power to account - it's one of the pillars of our society!! So I REALLY don't get why universities have having a hissy fit over this.

I studied it at university!

A requirement for “any materials within relevant courses and modules [to] positively represent trans people and trans lives.” OfS refers to this as the Positive Representation Statement throughout its report;

I just find this sort of stuff baffling. Where on the world do they think they get off saying that trans ppl must only ever, ever! be represented in a positive way. I mean it’s batshit. Is there any other cohort of society that goes around saying it must only be represented in a positive way?

All power to Doc Stock. Bloody legend that she is. I hope Kim Hill from RNZ hears about this and realises that her totally shitty interview with Kathleen was an embarrassment to women in New Zealand and maybe she owes her and GC kiwi women who have been totally silenced and humiliated an apology for treating the issue with disdain and ridicule rather than giving it the legitimate attention it deserves from serious media over here.

Good, good, good. So pleased they have done this. Hopefully all the VCs out there who did not supervise Sally Hines’s PhD and who are not up to their necks in TRA slurry will be watching and learning.

Is the problem that internal policies like this are open to misinterpretation, and the University should just be complying with the law?

Editing to add: But then should universities be getting rid of all similar policies?

That is really interesting.

From the article, the investigation focused on policies, not on the university's practical failure to prevent harassment and bullying, or the specifics of Stock's case.

From the article it was these policies that caused a chilling effect:

• A requirement for “any materials within relevant courses and modules [to] positively represent trans people and trans lives.” OfS refers to this as the Positive Representation Statement throughout its report;
• A statement that “the curriculum shall not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people”. It refers to this as the Stereotyping Statement;
• A statement that “transphobic propaganda … will not be tolerated.” It refers to this as the Transphobic Propaganda Statement;
• A statement that “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying (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.” It refers to this as the Disciplinary Statement.

The university dropped the first requirement in 2023, (how did it take so long? Was there nobody at the university who understood why this was a problem?), but I would have thought that by definition, stereotypes, propaganda and abuse are bad? (And irrelevant to Stock who is not guilty of any of these things).

I think we have more than enough evidence from tribunal testimonies to confidently answer "no' to that.

Yup. I can report that a great many academics are self-identified intellectual giants, and by now we all know what that means

“Not learning that if you gang up and are hostile enough you can bulldoze through what you want to be the excepted norm and anyone who disagrees is to be isolated and got rid of.” I think this nails it, @IwantToRetire

Unfortunately, some academics have confused bullying with ‘organising to defend your rights’ …

Here is an interesting, fairly factual take from Higher Ed blog Wonkhe for those who want to know more about what exactly Sussex was fined for: https://wonkhe.com/blogs/sussex-fined-almost-600k-over-free-speech/

Sorry if this has already been posted. I somehow lost contact with this thread.

Prof Roseneil, the vice chancellor at the university, said the OfS findings mean "it makes it almost impossible for universities to have any policies that will control how people speak or relate to each other on campuses".

She added: "It's free speech absolutism and puts free speech above all else. And the only thing that universities will effectively be able to do is regulate unlawful speech."

Prof Roseneil explained she believed the university could only take action against antisemitic or anti-Muslim propaganda if it was actually illegal which is a "very high bar".

https://news.sky.com/story/university-of-sussex-to-challenge-585-000-fine-by-regulator-over-transgender-free-speech-case-13335905

To me this suggests that they have or a deliberately not dealing with the manner and gang behaviour that was happening.

Its one thing have a disagreement because of holding opposing views, it is another to be intimidated and harassed.

Its a bit like the police non hate hate crimes. Can you run a university or any other organisation based accepting that if one person says they feel violated by a comment, means their view has precedent. What if all students did this about everything.

Not forgetting the role the university played in basically acting in a biased way. ie claiming TWAW is totally acceptable and must be believed by everyone, but saying sex is a biological fact must not be said or believed.

In a way saying it is just a free speech issue is not dealing with the fact that this universities (and others) has not been able or does not want to tell students that they cannot do whatever they want. They have to learn how to live in a society where there are many groups of people with widely varying view points.

This student probably dont behave like this at home and in their local community. Somehow they have got the idea that at university they are entitled to be bullies.

Although this ruling is good, positive even, the fact is this behaviour still continues. Not just in unversities, theatre etc..

The difference between saying or even debate how you dont think their view point is valid, and turning yourself into a gang of bullies and whining about what a hard time you are having.

Isn't that one of the life skills you are meant to gain in addition to whatever course you have signed up to. Mixing with a far wider range of people than you have experienced.

Not learning that if you gang up and are hostile enough you can bulldoze through what you want to be the excepted norm and anyone who disagrees is to be isolated and got rid of.

I'd never heard of the Office for Students. This is quite the surprise.

surely academics can understand the difference between reasoned arguments, differing views and bullying

I think we have more than enough evidence from tribunal testimonies to confidently answer "no' to that.

I heard the news whilst driving into work and literally cheered out loud.

At the time I couldn't believe how badly Prof Stock had been treated and it seemed liked the Uni were getting away with it...until now!

I believe the Uni are being disingenuous as surely academics can understand the difference between reasoned arguments, differing views and bullying.

A good article in tonight’s Times: https://www.thetimes.com/article/e985f191-e20d-4b25-9d8b-e57c3fcb80b1?shareToken=ba09d39585a749c3f1e1b6cae8fbedd8 (it’s a share token version)

I work in academia and people were talking about about this in the office this afternoon. General consensus was “No matter whether you agree or not, you can’t treat people like that”.

( I resisted a victory lap of the kitchen. )

The Guardian article makes it all sound very dry and academic, as if Prof Stock was never bullied, harassed or eventually driven from her job as a result of the way the University allowed her to be treated.

How far Sussex Uni have fallen, since their glory days with Sir Harry Kroto. He was such an inspiration to young scientists. I had some wonderful master-classes with him, and attended brilliant talks in the Gardner Arts Centre (as it was known then).

Objectively, feelings can't be more important than facts. Otherwise, there are no firm foundations to build our lives and societies upon.

"Margaret Thatcher was a wonderful Prime Minister who was strong and was highly respected around the world." aren't words you'd expect to hear coming from a leftie academic of a certain age thats for sure!

😂

They didn't speak to us!
Oh, they only communicated by post.
No meetings!
Well, no substantive meetings.
Waah! They didn't believe our bullshit! It's soooOOOOoooOO unfaaaaaiir!

"The higher education regulator's investigation examined the university's trans and non-binary equality policy, which said that course material must "positively represent trans people and trans lives""

I find this confusing.

I'm trying to imagine this concept in another context "must positively represent women and women's lives" - how would you write anything meaningful about women? Would it apply to all women? How would you write about domestic violence? Michelle Mone? Could you criticise Margaret Thatcher?

An new article in the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/mar/26/institutions-fear-bigger-penalties-after-landmark-university-of-sussex-fine

I wonder if they're investigating the OU?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74k2mpp02go
New article.

Arif Ahmed, OfS director for freedom of speech, said the fine could have been as high as £3.7m and there was "potential for higher fines in the future".

Universities have told the OfS they were concerned about how to uphold free speech while preventing hate speech.

The University of Sussex was the first to be fined under new powers given to the OfS in January.

The higher education regulator's investigation examined the university's trans and non-binary equality policy, which said that course material must "positively represent trans people and trans lives" and also said "transphobic propaganda... [would] not be tolerated".

The watchdog said the "chilling effect" this would have on anyone wanting to voice an opposing view meant the university failed in its duty to uphold freedom of speech on campus.

Surely you can say something negative about a group without being phobic, if it's factually accurate and backed with robust evidence?! You know, public interest defence or holding power to account or scandal type stuff that should be part of public discourse.

Saying that lesbians can't be male is one such point because there's a conflict issue.

This isn't bloody difficult despite the whining. These universities are clearly as thick as mince despite all the supposedly clever people in them!

Is it lesbians can only be female?
Is it that you can change sex? (Which you can't)
Is it that gender shouldn't be conflated with sex? (Like a full on record which states this harms trans people)
Is it that makes should be allowed free access to changing rooms / female only spaces? (Which is potentially illegal, and at direct odds with the exception clause in the Equality Act)
Is it that she opposes self ID, like the majority of the population of this country?

Honestly I'm struggling with where the controversy actually is here!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Stock

Stock is acknowledged as a prominent gender-critical feminist. She has opposed transgender self-identification in regard to proposed reforms to the 2004 UK Gender Recognition Act, and has argued that allowing self-identification would "threaten a secure understanding of the concept 'lesbian'". She has said that many trans women are "still males with male genitalia, many are sexually attracted to females, and they should not be in places where females undress or sleep in a completely unrestricted way." She has denied opposing trans rights, saying, "I gladly and vocally assert the rights of trans people to live their lives free from fear, violence, harassment or any discrimination" and "I think that discussing female rights is compatible with defending these trans rights".

In her 2021 article "What is a woman", Stock outlines her view that there are two immutable sexes (male and female), that the categories of "man" and "woman" are decided by biological sex not gender identity, and that views on language to establish more inclusive definitions are "hopeless".

Students and academics began to criticise Stock's views in 2018, when she spoke against proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act; the changes would have allowed people of all ages to legally self-identify as a particular gender without the requirement of a psychological or medical diagnosis. She received death threats as a result of her position.

Still wondering which 'ideal' here is problematic.

It's really a curiousity.

Quite!