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

Yes that's true, so it's even more one-sided in reality.

I'd like to see TWAW being tested in court. I wonder what is the best they could get away with. A religious belief perhaps.

Actually on reading the report they could have dined then 3.7million. 1.650m for breach 1 alone.

Publicly stating that you have no idea how to prevent hate speech and harassment isn't a good look, more like shooting yourself in the foot. It sounds like those students who are worried about being harassed or facing hate speech because of their identity will be better off going elsewhere, where these distinctions are well understood.

You're 100% right, TizerorFizz, I have this urge to always try to work out what the other side might be thinking, I don't know if it's a blessing or curse!

Perhaps Sussex would have preferred a fixed penalty notice for £1m slapped on the then VC's windscreen in 2021...🙄

They are still responsible for their actions. KS was hounded out and the university, as an institution, must take the blame. Also for their policies. It isn’t possible to wipe the slate of very recent history clean (or we would never have crimes against humanity trials or war crimes).

I suppose Sussex feels irked that the really bad stuff happened a few years ago, they made adjustments they thought were OK, and they get hit with half a mil fine anyway in 2025. 'Snot faaaairrrrr!

I'm not saying I agree with that, but the current VC probably sees it that way, and is defending her institution tooth and nail.
Her legal team probably don't see it in quite the same way.

The OfS said they could have fined them a million, but reduced it.

I think I read somewhere that Sussex is trying to raise some cash by doing a lifestyle series on Netflix... oh sorry, wrong Sussex😄

The detail is fascinating. Sussex clearly were given a right to reply by OfS before a final ruling so given the VC seems to be unaware of this in her claims of a KafkaesquE lack of transparency could that process have excluded her? A process for Court and Senate that she was not directly consulted about? I think that’s really unlikely.

My read of it is that once she was in position as VC she responded to the fact the OfS investigation was underway by adjusting the policy documents to not be, or so she thought, in breach of the regulations. They removed the positive reinforcement statement and made minor but important changes and she thought this was enough and probably became quite smug in her confidence. OfS found this wasn’t difficult because there lingered shades of ‘you will be policed and punished for wrongthink’ (my interpretation!) in the updated documents.

its quite clear to me that the policy document and the procedure for adopting it was guided by the invisible hand of Stonewall and tge VC is having a hissy fit because she thought she’d done a great job of steering around the investigation and I’m assuming a lot of the discussion was around the idea of harassment and bullying of Trans but as the report makes clear this could still be defined in unreasonable terms and would effectively continue the chilling effect.

I wonder how much support she will have from Sussex re judicial review but they need to be concerned. Her knee jerk response initially demonstrated she hadn’t properly read the report. But Sussex has not shown there to be many grown ups in the room when it comes to this sort of thing but if they keep fighting with the regulator they could lose a lot more than money.,

There already is variation in policy from different Unis. Obviously some may change because of this case others may wait on the review.

I think Sussex's case may have flaws as the document in question demands allowances for gender concepts like non binary with no recognition in law.

It elevates one equality characteristic above all others. Interesting survey here:
https://audreyludwig.com/why-statutory-compliance-should-not-be-overlooked-in-the-rush-to-be-inclusive/

This is where all those missing impact assessments to consider the rights of invisible women matter so much because those rights don't cease to exist just cos you've written a policy that suggests they have.

Sorry to go on but what I find fascinating is that OFS is their regulator and there are published standards that must be met - the trans policy didn’t meet those standards. Sussex knew the standards when it drafted this policy and didn’t care about possible breaches - presumably because they assumed all institutions were equally captured to the point of working unlawfully in terms of free speech. I find it so risible that Roseneil is claiming that this ruling will make it impossible to prevent bullying and harassment given there is no equal policy document covering, say, disability? Where is the policy document saying that including texts about disabled people must only represent them positively? Tumbleweed of course and highlights the nonsense of their policy.

This is the opening paragraph to the report so it’s clear that the documents on policy and how they were enabled were the focus of the assessment and the chilling effect this created. I don’t see what Sussex can hope from a judicial review? Roseneil seems to be claiming that the process was at fault for not discussing assessment with her — no requirement for that as it is about documents and process and how they contributed to chilling effect. Given the documents and process were public there is no reasonable ‘kafkaesque ness’. Put simply, this means that the OfS has fined the University of Sussex £585,000 for two breaches
of the conditions in our regulatory framework. One relates to our free speech and academic
freedom requirements, and the other to the university’s management and governance practices.
One of the university’s governing documents – its Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement
– limited what staff could teach, and what staff and students could say, about sex and gender. This
created a ‘chilling effect’: staff and students may have felt unable to express or discuss certain
lawful views (including ‘gender critical' views) for fear of breaching university policy and facing
disciplinary action. We know that one senior academic, Professor Kathleen Stock, felt unable to
teach certain topics as a result. This matters because constraints on lawful speech directly affect
the quality of students’ education and academic experience. All universities should make sure they
have policies and procedures in place to meet their free speech obligations.

They’re very gung ho considering their case is so flimsy. If they appeal, won’t it just serve to centre the actual abuse and bullying Doc Stock was obliged to endure?

They don’t seem to know when to stop digging.

I hope it does go to court. It will be interesting to see what comes out in the wash bundles.

I suspect that the investigation took so long precisely because they thought that Sussex would challange the fine and they have crossed all the Ts and dotted all the Is.

Sussex is certainly showing an abundance of hubris.

ETA - archive https://archive.ph/d5VpE

Sorry not sure if this has been posted

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/mar/27/university-of-sussex-legal-action-free-speech-fine-sasha-roseneil

The VC is saying they are confident the fine will be overturned do following legal action.

I'm wondering what universities with similar policies will do? Scrap them or wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings?

My understanding is that partly they were fined for messing up procedural matters. So they had policies approved by small groups rather than through the standard process. That may seem small but universities have approval processes that are required in order to comply with their legal obligations. So not following them is exactly what the office for students should be issuing fines for

I see Sussex intends to mound a judicial review. Mainly based on the suggestion that the trans policy was one of hundreds so wasn't important, and it certainly wasn't central to the university's governance. Good luck with that since it clearly states it is required to be considered in teaching practise and content.

I may have misunderstood but I thought the fine was not to do with Stock per se but key documentation such as the instructions to only allow literature into course that reflects Trans in a positive light. If that is the case then they did not need to speak to anyone or get a response because their investigation covered only published material in the public domain. I believe that material has been changed now — before the fine and no doubt in anticipation if it — and so I don’t think her argument is credible. This wasn’t a tribunal where they get to mount a defence but (I think but could be wrong) a punishment for guidance that removed the potential for free speech. I mean it is extraordinary for a university to demand the inclusion of only positive material in any course at any time with regard to one topic. What would have changed if they had spoken to Roseneil? Would she have persuaded them that approach was justified? Clearly not. It is indirectly related to Stock in that the idea of ‘wrongthink’ created a hostile environment for Stock and the publications reinforced that but that was not the issue of the fine but a consequence of the types of guidance and approach that caused the fine. So even if they could prove they supported Stock (😂😂😂😂) in the way Roseneil claims it wouldn’t make any difference to the fine as that is not the main cause of it.

“We will therefore be writing to the OfS to ask for clarity as the judgment appears to find that it is a ‘failure to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom’ if a university has policies to prevent ‘abusive, bullying and harassing’ material or speech.”

"You know what you did to Kathleen Stock? OK, well do the opposite of that in future. Enough clarity for you?"

This judgement raises concerns about how universities can, in practice, discharge freedom of speech and academic freedom duties alongside other important legal obligations” – Vivienne Stern, Universities UK

Well, I’ll tell you what, Vivienne, it’s really quite fucking simple. Universities need to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom within the law. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to accept it and allow its expression. Anything outside the law - true hate speech, harassment, breaches of the Equality Act 2010 etc - isn’t OK.

But you need to check it’s the actual law and not the law as certain people would like it to be. Stick to actual law and you’ll be grand.

And the fact it's still failing to understand what harassment is.

“We will therefore be writing to the OfS to ask for clarity as the judgment appears to find that it is a ‘failure to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom’ if a university has policies to prevent ‘abusive, bullying and harassing’ material or speech.”

If I were a spokeswoman for the University of Sussex right now, I probably wouldn't refer to the anti-bullying and harassment policies that it absolutely failed to enforce in relation to Kathleen Stock, who was literally bullied out of her job by trans activists.

the judgment appears to find that it is a ‘failure to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom’ if a university has policies to prevent ‘abusive, bullying and harassing’ material or speech.”

Did we read the same judgement? It doesn't say that, the only way you could think it does is if you think that anything other than full capitulation to gender ideology is bullying and harassment. Which, obviously, they actually do think.

Times - Kathleen Stock: My campus harassment was a ‘medieval experience’

https://archive.is/xsWSY

University of Sussex attacks Kathleen Stock freedom of speech ruling

Vivienne Stern, chief executive of Universities UK, which represents 141 institutions, was critical of the ruling, while acknowledging it was “absolutely essential that universities uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom”, which they were legally bound to do.

This judgement raises concerns about how universities can, in practice, discharge freedom of speech and academic freedom duties alongside other important legal obligations” – Vivienne Stern, Universities UK

However, she added: “This judgment raises concerns about how universities can, in practice, discharge freedom of speech and academic freedom duties alongside other important legal obligations, for example, under legislation to prevent harassment and hate speech.

“We will therefore be writing to the OfS to ask for clarity as the judgment appears to find that it is a ‘failure to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom’ if a university has policies to prevent ‘abusive, bullying and harassing’ material or speech.”
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/university-of-sussex-kathleen-stock-transphobia-freedom-of-speech-ruling/

Reminder the UCU vs Adult Human Female tribunal starts Monday. Some cross over with Doc Stock in they were key in targeting her. So this case over the UCU's attempt to censor a film is relevant.

UCU very likely to lose on past cases.

Thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5294574-ucu-being-taken-to-tribunal-over-discrimination-for-gc-views

Bloody brilliant article by Stock!

I think this has just been published, so link posted with no idea as to the content!

Fortunes are changing in the culture war Sussex University should move on - Kathleen Stock

https://unherd.com/2025/03/fortunes-are-changing-in-the-culture-war/
https://unherd.com/2025/03/fortunes-are-changing-in-the-culture-war/