Stop using equality laws to restrict free speech universities warned

[IwantToRetire]

Universities have a legal duty under the Equality Act 2010 to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation on the basis of characteristics including age, disability, religion, sex, gender reassignment and sexual orientation.

However, the Office for Students will warn universities on Thursday that policies which promote a particular protected characteristic “to the detriment of others”, may “amount to unlawful discrimination” and could have the effect of “curtailing” freedom of expression.

Ms Lapworth said that the new guidance drawn up by the regulator highlights the “importance of universities really understanding the nature of that free speech duty, alongside their equality duties”.

She added: “Too often we see universities not properly understanding that legal framing, and perhaps leaning more fully into the equality duties than we think that the law supports, and we are concerned that that is acting to curtail free speech in some circumstances.”

University administrators still claim freedom of speech on campus “isn’t a significant issue”, when “it is”, Ms Lapworth said.

She said: “We think that the issues around free speech are too complex and too important to reduce to a small tally of events that don’t go ahead or a small number of high profile, no-platformed speakers.”

uk.news.yahoo.com/stop-using-equality-laws-restrict-060000133.html

(I dont understand what is meant by that last statement)

She is saying that the pernicious effect of the stifling of free speech is much wider than simply no platform in of certain speakers. It is impacting academic teaching, research and debate as people are afraid to raise and discuss certain topics.

It’s the chilling effect. Professor Alice Sullivan at UCL has published some very good material on this, and she is also on twitter.

She is saying that the pernicious effect of the stifling of free speech is much wider than simply no platform in of certain speakers.

yes it is. I don't imagine I'm the only one to have decided to suspend their studies - hopefully temporarily - until sanity can prevail in some departments.

Too often we see universities not properly understanding that legal framing...

I think it's quite charitable to attribute the stifling of free speech to lack of understanding of the law. Universities understand it only too well but they are more concerned about ideological purity than furthering knowledge.

I'm currently a student at uni.
I've felt scared to discuss my views in seminars, lectures and even just amongst my fellow students.

A few weeks ago I sat through a lecture which made references to Terfs and talked (incorrectly) about radical feminists beliefs. I didn't feel able to speak up even when they asked for questions. I was sitting next to students who'd already expressed that my views on JK Rowling were wrong and refused to agree to disagree.

It's hard to bite my tongue and I feel awful about not standing up for what I believe. But I worked so hard to get into uni (I'm a mature student) and I feel like everything I worked for could be taken away if I make waves. Quite frankly I'm scared.

And scared of their students.

It's the self-censoring that Chimamanda NA so eloquently described in her Reith lecture.
I think when history looks back on all this, that lecture will have been one of those impactful speeches that historians refer to.

And scared of their students.

Yes and loss of income now that we've turned education into an industry.

@CriminallyCharmed don't put all your hard work at risk. Have you heard of Lisa Keogh who was a law student at Tayside uni in Scotland? She said that only women have vaginas when asked a direct question about it and she got into a whole heap of trouble for it.

You are right to be worried.

@CriminallyCharmed, I'm sorry to hear that. If you feel able to say, what subject are you studying? Or broad area? (Fingers crossed it's not medicine ...)

Criminallycharmed me too. Thankfully for me it doesn’t impact too much on my academic work, but it feels like all other interactions with the university are frankly dangerous. I did try to start a dialogue with the university about how this impacts on students. Nobody will be surprised to hear that was closed down pretty quickly!

bills.parliament.uk/bills/2862

I had no idea this Bill was being made.

Office for Students' article:

www.officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blog-and-events/press-and-media/university-leaders-and-academics-should-be-proactive-in-upholding-freedom-of-speech/

Their report:

www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/freedom-to-question-challenge-and-debate/

'Issues relating to the protected characteristics of sex, gender reassignment and belief (which includes philosophical belief) have been the focus of much of the recent public discourse on free speech within universities.'

'The interaction between different protected characteristics may require careful consideration – for example, some religious beliefs and the protected characteristic of sexual orientation. Both characteristics are afforded protection from harassment and discrimination under the Equality Act, and it may be necessary for universities and colleges to balance the different protected characteristics in certain circumstances. The expression of beliefs in a way that amounts to unlawful harassment or discrimination does not constitute free speech within the law. Universities and colleges may therefore need to weigh up whether the expression of certain religious or philosophical beliefs amounts to unlawful harassment and discrimination, and whether expression of those beliefs should be restricted to protect people with other protected characteristics from unlawful discrimination or harassment.'

Will this apply in Scotland? I think Education is a devolved matter.

No, looks like E&W only, Hughsrunning.

The section on the new Bill going through parliament:

'In the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, the government has proposed new duties on universities, colleges and their students’ unions, and an enhanced role for the OfS in promoting free speech.32

Key features of the government’s bill are:

A new duty on the OfS to promote the importance of freedom of speech within the law and academic freedom.

New OfS conditions of registration for universities and colleges relating to free speech and academic freedom. These include conditions requiring universities and colleges to comply with new free speech duties, thereby giving the OfS a direct role in determining whether universities and colleges are meeting those statutory duties.

Reframed free speech duties, to include a duty for universities and colleges to ‘actively promote’ freedom of speech, and an extension of the duty, and the OfS’s regulation, to apply directly to students’ unions.33

A new complaints scheme, operated by the OfS, to consider free speech complaints about universities and colleges or their students’ unions, from students, staff or visiting speakers.

A new role of Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in the OfS, to champion free speech and oversee the OfS’s functions in this area.

The introduction of a statutory tort for breach of the duty (meaning that individuals would be able to seek legal redress for any loss they have suffered because of a breach of the free speech duty).'

@Rightsraptor I had heard of Lisa Keogh and the trouble she had. It's absolutely awful, uni should be the place to debate anything and everything. If not here then where!?

Dr Hollie Chandler, head of policy at the Russell Group, said: “The OfS is right to highlight the importance of free speech and academic freedom and university leaders are already playing an active role in upholding these values on campuses around the UK.

“Last year, senior leaders across the Russell Group reiterated their commitment to defending and maintaining free speech in a joint statement which underlined this as a core value at the heart of universities’ purpose as academic institutions.”

Well, that's going well, judging by the recent scenes at Russell Group member the University of Edinburgh...!

I'm really sorry. I completely understand and share your frustration as to the wholesale destruction of critical thinking and holistic debate in universities, which is why I was so happy to read this particular OP.

I'm a university lecturer. My students ask me about this, too (and not only the mature ones). My response is to outline exactly what the two sides of a very polarized discussion are saying. I give a brief precis of what each side is saying, and I suggest academic reading - from both sides of the equation. I keep it well-balanced.

A number of students will press me further. They want to know what I, personally think (probably want to ensure they won't be downgraded). I tell them it doesn't matter what I think; it's what they think that's important. No lecturer worth their salt wants to hear our own views parroted back at us: autonomy and criticality are the two skills we want most to promote.

The kind of bias you outline is, IMO, not acceptable. I would not derisively use the term TERF in any lecture (how unprofessional is that?), any more than I'd use controversial terms like TIM, or MRA. I've had several comments passed my way about what a terrible human being JKR is, a sentiment with which I do not agree. My response: T S Eliot, D H Lawrence, and Wyndham Lewis had extremely unpalatable, fascist views. Virginia Woolf was accused, with some justification, of anti-Semitism. There are dodgy politics a mile wide with some of our major 20th century authors. Yet the syllabus would be very thin, and have far less interest or substance, without these major canonical figures.

This might sound like a cop-out. I've evaded answering these questions directly, albeit any student, if paying careful attention, could probably denounce me for not sporting rainbow lanyards or announcing pronouns. But this has been a lesson to me in good teaching. Good teachers are not biased (obviously there are some clear lines need to be drawn: pro-Naziism for eg. is not a thing I'd want bringing into my seminars; I have a responsibility to keep hate speech out, and will do so). Good teachers don't tell students what to think: they outline the key issues and encourage students to find their own, independent answers.

'Free speech' has caused a massive divide in my own university. It's fair to say we have to be really careful. Some lecturers undoubtedly take the (unprofessional) views disseminated to you in that lecture. But you'd be surprised by how many of us don't.

I do think it's interesting that some of the institutions who appeared to have gone furthest down the rabbit hole (here's looking at you, Edinburgh) have been amongst the first to drop their association with Stonewall.

Make of that what you will.

Thanks for the answer to my question, and all the other contributions. What a nightmare for those in universities, though I know someone who lost, or didn't have her job confirmed as a teacher, because she had expressed something in a non confrontational way about biology.

But I am glad that the statement I pasted an extract from did make clear that the rights of protected characteristics have to be balanced.

Although in fact the problem in universities isn't about gender reassignment but self id. So not that relevent. Unless you say knowing you a biologically a woman is the same as having a belief that you have a gender.

Just think, in a few years all this hardline students will be the ones running this country.

My response is to outline exactly what the two sides of a very polarized discussion are saying. I give a brief precis of what each side is saying, and I suggest academic reading - from both sides of the equation. I keep it well-balanced.

A number of students will press me further. They want to know what I, personally think (probably want to ensure they won't be downgraded). I tell them it doesn't matter what I think; it's what they think that's important. No lecturer worth their salt wants to hear our own views parroted back at us: autonomy and criticality are the two skills we want most to promote.

Absolutely, MarieIVanArkleStinks. If only all educators, at all levels, showed such professionalism.

It’s all very well to present both sides to students but the context is relevant, too. And the context is one where only one side is losing professional opportunities (TRA academics freely admit that they would not let a gender-critical publication through peer review) and sometimes even jobs. At the same time, universities and student unions go out of their way to create a culture in which gender identity is embedded in every policy. Whether that’s putting period products in male toilets, normalising pronoun announcements, marking various transgender holidays, ignoring students or staff who violate codes of conduct and defame gender critical academics - there is no level playing field. If you think it through, you either believe gender identity should trump sex or not, and universities are busy creating an environment where it does, independently of what is being taught.

I have a responsibility to keep hate speech out, and will do so

This is at the core of this issue though MarieIVanArkleStinks because* *anything less than TWAW is regarded as hate speech by these lecturers. If you accept that set of priors then you're wholly justified in doing whatever is necessary to silence anyone trying to promote what you perceive to be abhorrent views. You're more than justified, you must. This issue is the tip of an Iceberg of a profound epistemic crisis we are all now facing, whether we like it or not.