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

My understanding is that international students are fleeing elsewhere. They've brought this on themselves. Those of them who do come here are no doubt reporting back to their friends and families about how ridiculous it all is and how unaccountable and unprofessional Uni employees are and how their eye wateringly expensive fees are being wasted on this shit.

Those international students at KCL who raised concerns and were accused of bigotry? No-one they know will go to KCL to do engineering again I bet.

I do have worries when these things infect degrees like engineering. On the current trajectory at some point engineering graduates are going to be really really good at these niche vanity projects but unable to build bridges that stand up or planes that stay in the sky. There are real world consequences. This was not a good educational experience for these students.

This might explain the university thing

https://x.com/johnarmstrong5/status/1905690062899343383?s=46

Universities have taken the easy route - the path they thought would result in the least resistance and fitted with their preconceived views - rather than looking at impact assessments and choosing the best path which would bring both meaningful change and wouldn't have problems.

It's poor management.

Many many years ago I did a ilm course in management (think it was level 3 but I can't remember) and it talked about change and how there would always be people who were resistant too it but how you had to bring employees along with it whilst being aware of your legal obligations. You also had to think about things you hadn't considered and not do things based on assumptions. Consultations had to be actual consultations and not have predetermined outcomes which you then did all the paperwork to fit around. You determined your course of action after looking at things without bias.

On every single count universities are failing on this. This is what utterly baffles me - these are institutions that teach law and teach media and teach criminology and teach management and teach biology and teach history and teach religion.

And yet they STILL manage to come up with this shit show.

These are people who wouldn't last five fucking minutes outside education management and fuck me does it show.

I laughed out loud at this. Who needs Orwell's writing talents when Universities are actually doing this stuff?

And still apparently no actual reflection on sending this email that these two statements contradict each other completely. And I bet she's paid over 100k. Really she should go at this point.

People in higher positions in the public sector (charity sector too) don't lose their jobs, seemingly ever. This needs to change. Anyone in a managerial post seems to pretty much have to be actually convicted of the worst kind of crime (e.g. child rape) for it to happen, seemingly.

None of the OU witch hunters of Jo P have had any kind of reprimand, let alone losing their jobs.

Post Office Scandal, Blood scandal, Grooming gangs scandal. The same problem.

In all of the above cases laws were actually broken, and yet no accountability from anyone at the top ever. People who allowed the rape of little girls by grooming gangs have been promoted. Inquiries never seem to have the power to sack, they should.

And who suffers? The truly vulnerable such as the girls in the grooming gang scandal, the woman being raped on a 'single sex' ward and then gaslit about the crime committed against her with no consequences for those doing the gaslighting. And still they suffer, because the same people are in post and promoted and wield their power to silence often in preference to doing their actual jobs.

The avoidance of all criticism is a huge thing.

It prevents self critical debate. This clearly isn't possible internally and so they don't want it externally either.

This is what prevents whistleblowing. A self protectionist culture. It allows scandals to occur. That's what we are seeing blowing out because trust in these institutions has been lost and they've been making huge mistakes which do have massive social consequences.

It's a really poor work culture. Its authoritarian.

Not all workplace cultures are like this. Many have much better attitudes to resolving problems because they are less top down and less authoritarian. And they can still make money. Plus their workers are often happier.

This is where we get narratives about wastage coming into play because there's a class of people employed to cover arses rather than do what's best for an organisation and society in general. When it's public sector that does this and it's supposed to work for 'the people' it's even worse.

It's all about accountability and blame culture. These drives to shut down internal descent are fundamentally unhealthy.

In fact, I wonder if the answer is that working in DEI needs to be made an actual regulated profession which you need specific qualifications to work in, and to do a certain amount of compulsory training each year to ensure you remain up to date. It should be overseen by a professional conduct body, and if you misrepresent the law or cause harm to individuals or financial loss to your employer because you're pursuing your own agenda, you get struck off and your employer has no choice but to fire you.

I wonder whether there's a way to force universities to stop wasting public money on this shit. The problem with the public sector is that it is ultimately taxpayers who have to pay their fines and legal fees. (And students, in the case of universities.) Not these ideologues. I think a few high profile heads need to roll before the DEI industry as a whole starts to wind its neck in. If you were working in the private sector and you caused your employer to be fined or lose a big legal case over shit like this, you'd get fired.

I keep trying to work out why these cases keep coming. There are lots of theories but this is particular to the public sector. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, is insanity but no one has told the Unions, or they refuse to listen.
My opinion is that having voted TWAW (lots but not all Unions) they have to encourage departments, colleges etc to pursue, otherwise they aren't protecting, what is now become, a sacred cow. I really can't think of any other reason as to why the insanity continues. Any other ideas?

Great post by RedToothBrush. It's definitely not as hard as some are (deliberately, to avoid accountability) trying to make out. Any mother or caregiver of a toddler knows how to deal with unreasonable demands that aren't in a child's long term interests. It's not bloody rocket science.

What needs to happen is staff and students need to be held to some level of professional conduct, which includes accepting that others may hold opinions you do not like and calling them names and threatening them and trying to get them sacked in a public campaign is not an appropriate response to that.

At the moment I do think many Universities are fairly toxic - lots of junior employees on temporary contracts scared of putting a foot wrong and then senior academics who seem impossible to remove unless they commit a fairly heinous crime and Unions acting as political lobby groups rather than representatives of employees to the point of joining in the persecution of their members paying subs.

There should be a requirement for professional standards if they want to charge money and act like a business. VCs are paid sums greater than many CEOs and the Prime Minister of the country and yet the VC of Sussex is behaving like a child having a toddler tantrum with no dignity or level of taking responsibility as a result of this fine. And she wonders why OfS didn't think there would be any benefit in talking to her? She kneejerk wrote that response immediately without any adult reflection or consideration of what Sussex may have done wrong at all. Black and white thinking, Sussex could do no wrong at all in her view. Despite the black clad mob and the death threats to Stock.

Great article from the Committee for Academic Freedom at least 29 other universities maybe liable to be fined, 9 are in serious danger:

Will British universities learn from the mistakes of Sussex?

https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/03/28/will-british-universities-learn-from-the-mistakes-of-sussex/

Universities should be the gateways to real life situations.

That means briefings that reflect real world needs so they have better skill sets to show off and better ability to deal with the challenges of the workplace.

A briefing about designing for LGBT vanity isn't needed and isn't going to shift many units in practical applications.

The problem with the idea that students are paying customers here is that Universities are just capitulating to those who shout loudest, not what their customers want. They've tried to make themselves like businesses but it's my observation they're rubbish at market research. Most international students do not believe TWAW in my experience, far from it, and they need this money. I bet most home students don't believe it either, they're just scared to say so.

Partly this is because the Union and activist lecturers have not been held to normal professional terms of conduct in the workplace. Universities seem to these days be a terrible preparation for the world of work.

The situation with the Engineering students at KCL - there were a tiny number of lecturers with the power to impose this and a few very vocal students. Then there were the majority who didn't want the bizarre LGBT+ focused engineering project. Their communication was reasonable and fairly pointed out focusing on only one minority group could be seen as excluding the others. And yet they were cast as bigots. A good example of where one PC is raised above all others, to the particular detriment of international students.

Nice diary comment on the Times today from the sadly departing Patrick Kidd.

After Sussex University was fined £585,000 this week for breaking free speech rules, its vice-chancellor informed all staff in an email that their right to say what they like was a “foundational commitment”. Well, up to a point. A few lines later, Sasha Roseneil told academics that if any journalists asked them for comment they should keep schtum and direct them to the press office.

And in another potential point of tension, from 1 August a new regulation comes into force requiring universities in England to go further in showing how they will promote and uphold free speech on campus.

The OfS says this shouldn't include the content of courses or discussions in the lecture hall. All higher education institutions have to meet conditions to register with the OfS in order to charge tuition fees.

But they will also have to show how they are acting to prevent the harassment of students - and universities are required to try to increase applications from underrepresented groups, through initiatives to make them feel more included.

Lawyer Smita Jamdar, who advises universities in England on how to comply with regulations, says that to reduce harassment, universities need to be "really clear about the behaviour you will and will not tolerate" and that action will be taken when students "transgress those boundaries".

While that has to be balanced against freedom of speech, Ms Jamdar said most people would expect "the line to be drawn somewhere other than name calling and derogatory jokes".

When the BBC looked at similar trans equality policies at a number of universities it wasn't entirely clear whether they would be considered a challenge to free speech.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn52527gk69o

I really don't think this as difficult as students are making out.

You do not have a right to only hear what you want to hear. Sex exists. Trans people have a sex. Sex is not gender and conflating the two is harmful to everyone including trans people. Pronouns are not politically neutral and can do harms. There is no right for males to use female facilities - there's an exception clause in the equality act. We have a legal right to believe in sex as this WORIADS.

Targeted campaigns against individuals including death threats aren't that difficult to distinguish as harassment.

The problem with trans policies full stop is they are built on the concept of others being forced to comply with almost religious doctrine. And it's built on the believe in someone else's head. It's not tangible and it's fictitious.

The further this goes along, the more I think it has to be treated as a religious belief with separate facilities provided by institutions of a big enough size where appropriate - like prayer rooms are. However others can not be forced to go along with it. You can state you don't believe and I would go as far as saying that pronouns are going to have to be let go. The issue is whether you are harassed and abused for your beliefs and aren't employed. Harassed would be a targeted campaign of deliberately going out of your way to do something that isn't in the course of normal every day life. So anything that involves a journey that you would otherwise not make, springs to mind as a good and easy way to start. Along with certain spaces having different levels of protection. (This is also why the L will need a divorce from the T - they are incompatible if you want a protective bubble for either or both. Universities would be wise to oversee it or they put themselves at risk.) Unequal levels of unfair criticism is another, where you can demonstrate that another student is being treated more favourably.

But as part of this students are going to have to start to accept that they aren't the centre of the known universe like toddlers think. They may have no said to them because of various concerns or issues - including for their own wellbeing which they may not recognise. Demanding is going to have to stop. It's not something they will be able to do after university so it's not in their long term interests for it to be normalised by cowardly universities.

It's interesting that there is more to come in terms of harassment. The harassment elements of this and the inability of universities to grasp what harassment is, is going to produce some interesting results.

Jancie Turner talking about the financial costs to the taxpayers:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/5ebb0aeb-3f81-454e-90ad-f646dee8b1b4?shareToken=ae60a0e8fb10f1857349ac689e675bf5

This is interesting. And surprisingly published by they "i"

... All good teaching should be about defining our terms. What do the terms sex and gender mean? Is it DNA? Having a penis? Or how you feel? Discuss. What is the difference between anxiety and worry; between depression and sadness. Discuss. What is the difference between ADHD and struggling to focus. Discuss.

It is also about thinking critically and building an argument. Is female genital mutilation wrong? What about male circumcision? What about ear piercing in babies? What about straightening Black women’s hair? What about make-up? Discuss.

And it is about listening to the views of others and being prepared to change and learn. Get into groups and discuss “to what extent is obesity the responsibility of the person or society”.
Debates like this are now dangerous territory that we step into at our peril.

... I am still learning but have been accused of obesity stigma for presenting research that obesity causes cancer and is linked to overeating. My lecture on “women’s health” (abortion, miscarriage and childbirth) was described as not inclusive. My lecture called “eating behaviour” was reported as triggering and in need of a trigger warning as it was about eating behaviour. Our study exploring the role of psychology in long Covid was withdrawn by the university following an outcry that we were saying long Covid was not real.

When I argued that universities may be doing harm by bubble-wrapping their students, my own student union responded that this was “gross”. I’ve heard of colleagues whose students won’t discuss many of these issues for fear of being cancelled by other students. And I know clinical academics who have received death threats for publishing research their patients did not like.

... A comment in a lecture, recorded, taken out of context and sent to a vice-chancellor can have massive ramifications.

For universities there is the added fear of going broke. Students bring in money. If debates upset students, who is going to pay for our salaries? ...

Just a few paragraphs from a much longer article so please dont assume anything about the article as a whole or the author from the extract I have chosen!

Full article https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/lecturer-used-love-student-debates-now-called-triggering-3607549

Can also be read in full at https://archive.is/CTSMg

This aspect, that the students are now the paymaster, means that the admin / finance side of universities prioritise what they want and say. And this means that those who are coming to learn are actually given more power than those who are teaching them.

And that the students bring with them their view of the world formed by other teenagers and social media. And dont want lecturers to challenge this!

Fascinating piece.

But it was KCL, not UCL. Very important difference!

It does feel very personal from the VC. I agree with @Hermyknee. I think she thought the alterations made under her watch were the dog’s bollocks and not only is she insulted the OfS haven’t agreed or mentioned her in glowing terms she desperately does not want an historical fine to go down on her watch. I bet she’ll get the judicial
review underway which will take years before it comes to the panel and she’ll take a post elsewhere and she’ll then declare it the JR happened years after she left so nothing to do with her. We can all see the narcissism of her replies.

Most complaints questioned the project’s relevance to engineering.

Yep, I'm with them on that. What electromechanical device can't be operated by someone of the 'wrong' sexually or gender identity? Especially ones for extreme conditions.

I can think of loads for other protected characteristics such as sex, age or disability. Space suits and equipment for women, for example, are way behind those for men (vacuum loos that don't fit female anatomy etc). But T? ['Not in the spirit' suggestions redacted.]

Fenlandia · Today 12:34

The Green party are a massive disappointment, episode 43,296:

The ratio is currently 137,000 views, 147 like and all the comments I read were highly critical.

Maybe a klaxon that goes off with a big flashing light that says “TERF ALERT! TERF ALERT!” if someone has Incorrect Thoughts in the vicinity. It could also dispense snacks, blankets and support animals to anyone affected by such terrible crimes.

I think they should take a stance and refuse to submit the coursework, and lose the marks. Signing that petition is a cowardly way to have their cake and eat it too.

Yes students who could be in actual danger (not the 'literal' kind which isn't literal ) in their home countries if they are associated with the project are just cowards who should definitely have to lose marks. TRAs are like caricatures of themselves at this point.

I'm sure she would. But I imagine that accepting a settlement was the option more conducive to recovering from her ordeal.

That’s a shame. I’d like her to be compensated.

Would she have a case against them I wonder