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

@RedToothBrush @BeyondHumanKenDoll
I don’t disagree at all that free speech is fundamental! But trans extremism is not only a threat to free speech but very specifically a threat to women. Men can afford to care a lot less.

Also, I am actually in favour of reserving some spaces for female-only speech. There is value in excluding males from certain discussions.

But yes, absolutely, a university has to allow all speech within the law - but when trans bullshitters are challenged on some of their more ludicrous claims, they often use a free speech argument.

https://www.politicshome.com/opinion/article/ofs-investigation-into-my-university-was-flawed-kathleen-stock

Far from accepting the findings, the VC is having a proper meltdown.

This caught my eye - The current Sussex VC's PhD supervisee [is that a word??] had an 'exchange of views' with Doc Stock on Women's Hour in 2018

Not directly linked to Doc Stock's treatment at Sussex of course, and a PhD supervisor does not necessarily agree with her supervisee of course, but Hines expresses the same beliefs as Stock's persecutors.

Update on 19 Nov 2018: after her appearance on Woman’s Hour in a conversation with Dr Kathleen Stock (very ably moderated by Jane Garvie) it became painfully obvious that Hines doesn’t understand the difference between “sex” and “gender”; that she hasn’t heeded the pleas of intersex people not to be used as debating points by trans activists; and most tragically, given that she has a professorial position in a Russell Group university, that she believes that “trans women are women” is a magical incantation. Sorry, Professor Hines, my abra remains resolutely un-cadabra’d.

You can listen to the Woman's Hour discussion here:
Woman's Hour - Sex and gender: Why are these words so controversial? - BBC Sounds

The UK Reddit view - so much clueless, prejudiced bollocks being spouted about Kathleen Stock, and people claiming “deplatforming works” pointing to the Reddit site itself as a great example 😂 https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/7Yh4X4UhUX

This is very heartening for those of us working in universities.

I'd love to see how Sussex frame their appeal; are they really going to claim that Prof Stock's essays were bullying and harassment of the most marginalised?

Critical of gender because Stock taught “women’s studies” and women are her expertise.

maybe Sussex should get a trans studies dept going and they can teach what they like about gender ….

£585k really isn't a huge amount of money for a university I'm afraid, they're expensive places to run. It's a smallish research grant, or 3 times the nominal cost of an international PhD studentship (explanation deleted because it was more info than you want while still not being completely accurate!). Point is, universities deal in large numbers and this isn't one, on that scale. Clearly large enough to have touched a nerve though, which is good!

What happens to the £585k? - you can run quite a lot of lecture courses for that amount! It would be nice if it could be donated to other universities that don't discriminate, but doubtless it will disappear into general government funds and students will lose out.

I wish I knew the nitty-gritty about what happened between 2021 and 2022 at Sussex.

I know that in 2021 the then VC publicly stated his support for Stock/academic freedom:

The University of Sussex's vice chancellor has defended a professor after protesters tried to have her sacked for her views on gender identity.
Staff "have an untrammelled right to say and believe what they think," Adam Tickell told BBC News.
The university is investigating the incidents, and will take disciplinary action if necessary, Vice Chancellor Prof Adam Tickell told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Friday.
University of Sussex backs professor in free speech row

That seems like a good response, and supportive of Stock. I can't imagine the current VC saying that.

What I don't know is how Tickell followed up on what he said - did he/the uni take any disciplinary action?

I would also like to know why Tickell left.

The interview with the BBC was in late 2021; the current VC took over in 2022 - what happened in between? Was Tickell leaving anyway, or did his pro-free-speech response hasten his departure? Was Roseneil chosen because she would never say anything like
'staff have an untrammelled right to say and believe what they think'?

A PP said Tickell is now at Birmingham - I wonder how that's going? Is he upholding free speech and academic freedom there?

While I’m very very happy to see the scale of this fine, like Marie & Red I’m seething at the mere suggestion that it woz Trump and Vance wot won it. We cannot let this narrative take hold, when it’s the work of work of women chipping away bit by bit and funding every step with small, but important donations. Not to mention the sheer hell that KS and so many other brave women have gone through.

If you have no money, then appealling is either because you have nothing to lose and you are utterly fucked if you have to pay or because you are utterly fucked in the head and are prepared to lose everything because you've totally lost your mind.

'Hines has been at Leeds for quite some time; she got her PhD in 2004 at Leeds, in the department where she’s now a professor, for a thesis entitled “Transgender Identities, Intimate Relationships and Practices of Care“. Her PhD was supervised by Fiona Williams and Sasha Roseneil (Roseneil is now Dean of the Faculty of Social & Historical Sciences (SHS) at UCL. “Sasha’s background also includes 16 years at the University of Leeds where she established and directed the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, now considered a world leading centre in the field.”)'

BBC has said Sussex are appealing. They are wrong to do so.

Sussex are already having to lay off staff because they have financial problems, so I suspect they can’t afford not to look into appealing - £585k is a massive hole in their already-buggered finances.

But you can’t appeal just because you don’t like a decision, there have to be legal grounds to do so. So I suspect it’s also a face-saving exercise.

This is from 2018
https://herriotts.wordpress.com/2018/10/13/the-usual-suspects-sally-hines/

Looks like the current VC was Sally Hines's PhD supervisor...

Heard this on Radio 4 this morning and I was so surprised that I nearly spilled my tea! It is brilliant news. And also amazing that the BBC reported it.

The report added that Sussex are furious and are going to appeal.

We mildly observed to each other, “Aren’t they one of the universities in massive financial trouble?” but I suppose when you’re a Brave-n-Stunning warrior for TRSOH then no price is too high. What their funders, donors, and (importantly) fee-payers think about throwing yet more money at the Omnicause is another matter 🧐

If they appeal maybe the fine will be increased- it was a lower fine because it was the first ever fine of its kind so they threw Sussex a lifeline. I think it should be rescinded given this response.

And the commitment to free speech is all very well but the problem with GCs using a free speech argument has always been that it’s actually not at the heart of the matter. Because ultimately, this is about women and their privacy, safety and dignity.

I also resent this concept because part of it is based on the misconception that The Far Right Support Free Speech. Yet again its about this smearing and guilt by association concept.

Let me make this absoluetely clear.

The Right and Left can BOTH be authoritarian. Free speech is the counter measure to both the left and right. This is precisely why authoritarians battle to control the narrative.

If you want the Far Right to control the narrative on this subject, if you try and control speech you will lose. The only way you win is by recognising that this is a balancing act. The line is threats, bullying and harassment and you make this clear it applies to everyone.

People who recognise sex rather than believing in gender, are not automatically hard left or right or moderate left or right or even slap bang in the centre. They come from ALL of these position because recognising reality is not a political position. You have to be free to stay how many fingers you are holding up.

Otherwise you have lost ALL power and with it, by default, any right to privacy, safety and dignity.

Is “Office for Students” like a tertiary education Ofsted? They should probably be looking at the OU (but presumably a complaint needs to have been made).

My Uni days were i. The 80’s, when my Alma Mater was more than happy to suspend or boot out difficult/protesting students. It doesn’t seem to happen any more.

it just adds one more little factor to the deeply depressing 'which UK university will go bust first?' speculation. I fear that once one goes a lot more will follow rather fast.

And the commitment to free speech is all very well but the problem with GCs using a free speech argument has always been that it’s actually not at the heart of the matter. Because ultimately, this is about women and their privacy, safety and dignity.

I respectfully disagree I'm afraid. Free speech is at the heart of the matter, otherwise you have no tools at all to stand up for women and girls. That is why the self-ID lobby use the No Debate tactic and, failing that, a shaming tactic ie Be Kind which has the same effect of silencing speech.

I believe that universities who (alongside the press) have a duty to stand up for free speech but fail to do so should be sanctioned very harshly and publicly.

Re the new VC - google the 'glass cliff phenomenon'. Women are often drafted in at times when it is obvious they will fail - ie to clear up the mess that men have made. And then the finger is pointed towards them saying, look a rubbish female leader.

But then again, reading the current VC's comments there is also the very obvious possibility that she is simply repeating the mistakes of Prof Tickell, albeit at a lower level.

And the commitment to free speech is all very well but the problem with GCs using a free speech argument has always been that it’s actually not at the heart of the matter. Because ultimately, this is about women and their privacy, safety and dignity.

Hard disagree.

You can not uphold the privacy, safety and dignity of women if you can not name reality, speak about reality and understand the power of the truth.

The privacy, safety and dignity of women is TIED to power and control. Power and control is maintained through the use of language and the ability to speak.

This is why authoritarianism (of all political persuasions) doesn't work well for women - because they have less power within society. Where you have free speech, women have greater power.

If we can't describe what is happening to us because we are preventing from talking about it, we can not stop it happening to us. Because we lack the words.

Words have power.

Ask Orwell. Ask Arendt.

This is basic stuff. All history and politics students in the UK should know this stuff by university age (even if they are authoritarians wishing to control others!).

An organisation is still held accountable for its actions. It doesn’t matter if leadership has changed. Look at the Post Office. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong.

BBC has said Sussex are appealing. They are wrong to do so and some staff probably should be investigated as they are at best incompetent and at worst not acting in accordance with employment legislation and policies.

I think certain universities have promoted courses that attract the noisy trans community. So others may well be silenced. If I was Sussex I’d look at the academic offering and make changes. However being in Brighton !!!!!!

What’s in it for them? This nonsense will last longer in universities than anywhere else because academics have built their careers on researching, teaching and publishing in this area. They have been fawned over and funded for years and have taught and hired in their own images, multiplying their numbers. Universities have set up departments and chairs in this, often at the expense of women’s studies.

Admitting that this is nonsense and that they haven’t been warriors for truth, justice and cutting edge research means denouncing who they are and what they’ve spent years doing. Very few people are capable of doing this, and the universities that are always crying poor will be just as reluctant to admit that they funded and fell for it too.

You feel sorry for universities for failing to uphold the law and carry out their responsibilities as pastoral carers for staff, women and other vulnerable groups because one group is radicalised?

Its literally their job to deal with this shite.

If you had a bunch of extremist of other politicial ideas on campus protesting and threatening violence towards staff or other students, you'd expect the university to grow a pair and deal with it.

Why do they suddenly deserve sympathy because its a certain issue?

Seriously, why does this have to be pointed out: unacceptable behaviour remains unacceptable. Harassment, intimidation and threats remain harassment, intimidation and threats.

We have a whole court case which lists the failures by the university on this. Stop delegitimising and undermining these crucial points through the social expectation placed on women to emphasis. It harms us.

This shouldn't be about emotions on a subject. It should be about focusing on balancing rights and upholding the law. The end.