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

Good points. The thing is even on its own terms the protests were utterly biased because the students and the University were totally fine then and now with monotheistic religions lead by men who don't believe in "trans" stuff at all and actively work against it. Doc Stock writing and saying things was more notable or powerful than the Vatican or Islam somehow.

Sussex Uni has its own sex divided Muslim prayer room. Totally breaking its policy on nonbinary stuff being important.
https://sussex.page.isoc.link/p/688efb/

Its Catholic chaplain is a monk.
https://catholicstudents.org/about/

A very good question which puts into focus the VC’s attempt to argue that the OfS action will enable racism, antisemitism and anti-Muslim animus.

Reminds me a bit of the argument that not giving puberty blockers to children would bar teenagers from having abortions.

Did Sussex have similar policies about eg gay people? Disabled people? Or were trans people singled out to be given such preferential treatment? And if so, why, and on whose say so?

Very true. There is self-censorship within the media too and often it is top down imposed as we saw at the Guardian and their treatment of female journalists who wanted to write critically about this matter.

But I think the problem of self censorship is even bigger in academia. At least we have a vaguely pluralistic media - ie if the Guardian won't publish the Daily Mail will etc. But there are fewer alternatives in academia, where getting published in a tiny selection of journals is make or break for a career and where what you say is highly influenced by the anticipated reactions of a small group of peers. It is a tribal system and you will be ostracised from your clan/peer group for saying the wrong thing and that can be career ending.

fromorbit thanks for the link to the recent Stock article.

I don't think all lawyers are "captured" (good phrase) by the one ideology (I am a lawyer - although even saying that these days can be an issue as our professional conduct rules control what we post in our own time even under a different name online - not that I ever say anything illegal or even nasty). It is still a fine line.

If I write that fundamentalist Christianity or the Bible or Islam treats women badly, is that "making offensive or pejorative comments relating to another person’s race, sexual orientation or religion"? If the recipient of the comment is offended because their belief is that Biblical or Islamic rules relating to women, submission to husband or limiting number of wives a man can have to protect women, are protective not damaging to women - does that then mean because the reader is offended my comment breaches my professional rules and means I can be struck off as a solicitor? It is the lack of clarity that is the issue.
https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/offensive-communications/

Unclear laws are bad laws.

Many journalists have no training in journalism. Many journalists who have training in journalism seem to have forgotten them. Hello BBC I'm looking at you - one of the modules I did at uni which is particularly relevant to this area was also taught to BBC staff as part of their training in the late 1990s. It was identical and taught by the same lecturer - he made a big deal about it. Did everyone who took this course just evaporate into thin air?!

That's such a good article, thank you. I was going to quote some of my favourite bits, but, basically - all of it!
https://archive.is/dOEGl#selection-1331.0-1333.32

Ironically big city law firms are very captured. I wonder if that extends to legal colleagues in other sectors

Why doesn't academic training have an element on the law and philosophy around speech, a bit like journalists have to do for their training?

As a PP said there are strong protections in favour of free speech in the press, (for example fair comment in libel law, the public interest test etc) which journalists are taught about and learn how to navigate in the course of their work. Without these defences our entire news ecosystem would only be full of happy clappy stories about lovely people doing wonderful things. Essentially this would be pure untrammelled PR and it would be a nightmare. It is chilling that some academics do not recognise the need to maintain the ability to criticise, who ever the group. The investigation is right to call out that document about 'only positive representations' as being a core breach of free speech.

"Eventually, the OfS has found two historic breaches. One relates to a two-page statement intended to protect the welfare of transgender staff and students, and the second to the University’s way of approving a small number of documents."

This is enraging from the current VC. Disgustingly minimising. We all saw the videos of bullying students and staff chanting, yelling, setting off flares, the smoke, masked people chanting, the horrific placards and graffiti.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10172813/KATHLEEN-STOCK-reveals-really-like-vilified-beliefs.html

It must have been terrifying for Kathleen (and those supporting her). In looking back to find the videos, I found this article in which she explains how she was horribly bullied as a child and adolescent, and the effects that had. It's also a really good article on her general life and work, and her career path - I had no idea!

https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,kathleen-stock-i-wont-be-bullied-into-submission-18395

They will not only have a law department but an actual legal team who are employed specifically to spell this kind of thing out to them.

The strange thing is that Sussex has a law department. There must be people employed by the university who could explain the line between free speech and harassment with reference to anti-abortion protestors standing outside abortion clinics. I don't understand why this was all so difficult to manage.

A fairly lively debate in the comments of that piece.

The graffiti was cleaned up, there were images on Twitter of estates workers scrubbing it off and students taunting them with ‘whose side are you on’?

Wow, this is stark isn't it? Such a graphic illustration of what we've been saying all along about trans activism being a stance of the privileged.

How awful for those workers, who presumably just needed to keep their jobs.

Very interesting article, thanks Meanacademic. 'Fairly factual', as you described it, and fair play to the writer who demonstrates that it is possible to disagree with something, but still summarise it accurately, while letting your feelings show in comments outside the summary.

I noticed something disturbing :
'There will also be questions about Arif Ahmed himself.'
Well, there will be now that you have said that, Jim Dickinson!

VC Roseneil also said something about the investigation being 'politically motivated'.

It's beginning to sound a bit like Cass, isn't it? undermine the author, and imply they are not independent, if you don't like what the report says.

I think this is where these additional policies are causing problems, particularly if they are proposed by interest groups - they create an additional layer of compliance, but with no requirement for the overall policy to be consistent or balanced or to comply with the law.

Trying to relate it to something that concerns me, am I more protected from sexism if a company or institution has an internal equality policy? Do I need this in addition to the law?

Sadly Sussex is not the only university where this type of behaviour occurs, it’s almost become the norm in education and many other areas to only be allowed to express an opinion that agrees with those that shout loudest, free speech is being squeezed, people are scared to express their opinion.

What universities should consider is how they deal with harassment. Of students and staff by students and staff. If legal and legitimate views are expressed, a person doing so should be free from harassment. I’m amazed universities cannot see this is required and staff and students should be disciplined.

She is so classy. I love her closing line.

The Equality Act itself acknowledges the possibility of conflicts between protected characteristics. Anyone in HR should understand these are legitimate and not hierarchical. It boggles my mind that we are where we are with institutions full of supposedly smart people. It's basic level stuff as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry I haven't FTFT but this is great news.

Here's how my union branch reacted to the situation: https://bsky.app/profile/ducu.bsky.social

Doc Stock's take is impressive as always.

Fortunes are changing in the culture war Sussex University should move on
https://archive.is/dOEGl#selection-1331.0-1333.32

They idea that universities can't tell what harassment is, is deeply concerning on many levels.

Not least because we know university campuses have an issue with women being sexually harassed...

These ideals of 'duty of care' and what universities have responsibilities about seems really rather selective.

The quote higher up that a university person was saying that meant no policies were allowed. that is fine with me as we have the law. If the law allows a statement - I support Israel or Victory to Palestine or the biology of a female being set out then just go with the law. You don't need a whole load of other policies.

What I have seen is some of my Gen Z children learning a lot at university and school (which is great), learning new ideas, always having different views from mine of course in this family (pity I could not produce clones as it would have been easier), but also some fairly left wing views but then they emerge into the normal world, work place etc and become more normal again (one even voted the same way I did at the last general election. It has been interesting observing it. However I still feel the universities need to do a lot less censorship and just present different ideas even ideas they hate and of course even allow facts to be stated even if they hate the facts themselves.

They need to be less concerned about people being upset and they should physically protect students eg Jewish students on campus (and indeed muslim ones) and stop people being shouted down in debates - students need to learn that we let each person speak, we listen with respect and then destroy them with good argument.

They are above the laws of democracy and fair play didn’t you know… it doesn’t apply to the enlightened ones.