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

[OhBuggerandArse]

The inquiry in the wake of Kathleen Stock's experience has finally been completed:

'An English university is set to be fined a record £585,000 over allegations it failed to uphold free speech and academic freedom, in a landmark ruling in the debate over student rights on campus. England’s higher education regulator found “significant and serious breaches” of free speech and governance issues at the University of Sussex, according to a draft press release seen by the Financial Times. The Office for Students press release, to be published on Wednesday, said policies intended to prevent abuse or harassment of certain groups on campus had created “a chilling effect” that might cause staff and students to “self-censor”.'

Sussex 'has reacted furiously...'

https://www.ft.com/content/d39f0db7-877a-4cf3-8c12-dd5581eecd0b?fbclid=IwY2xjawJP_1RleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHVWF1ZXM3cKbxGAvtKfecgeMyAXNae5933M9a3dru0zohKTe7Vk24foIeA_aem_HpdtsUQc6ipMGY9J5AGFWQ

I imagine that the difference was and is that Stock was making a sensible and reasonable argument, so was far more threatening.

Haha, yes that's a pretty good description. I know all social media apps are echo chambers to an extent because of the algorithms, but it seems to be another level there. And the sanctimonious "I'm right and everyone else is far right' attitudes 🤮

I see a lot of GC stuff on X but I do see a lot of disagreement and dissenting views too.

On one of our all staff calls (public sector) someone piously asked if we would be following the Guardian's example and leaving X for Bluesky 🙄 Thankfully, the response was that we need to maintain a neutral position on these matters, so no, we wouldn't be.

Mnhq got asked that the other day.

It's utterly ridiculous.

Hahaha when and where was that?!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/5300419-is-it-not-time-now-for-mumsnet-to-leave-xtwitter?page=3&reply=143094637

On site stuff

LOL thanks.

The crux of the issue, as far as the bleating of UoS goes, is that they're saying they now can't prevent hate speech/bullying. If you believe that gender critical views are inherently transphobic; that saying transwomen are not women is hate speech; or insisting that male bodied people do not have any right of access to women-only spaces is bullying then yes, this fine does stop you imposing that view.

However, that really depends on whether this is the correct definition of hate speech/bullying/transphobia. I - along with many others - would argue that it isn't, particularly post-Forstater where GC views were deemed to be WORIADS.

UoS seem to have imposed their own definitions based on how they would like things to be (aka "Stonewall Law") and also allowed the horrendous mistreatment of those deemed to have transgressed. They have allowed an untouchable sacred caste to rule the roost to the detriment of everyone else and in doing so have - with perfect irony - allowed the hate speech and bullying they profess themselves so opposed to.

The bottom line is that UoS was wrong to define hate speech/transphobia/bullying as they have and therefore they a) have a responsibility to accept all legal views, even if they do not like them, and defend the right to hold those views and b) cannot take action or allow action to be taken against those who hold, espouse or express those views. That they don't want to accept they were wrong would explain all the tedious whining.

(As a side point for posters saying they didn't know of the OfS' existence, it was created in 2018 along with Research England. Previously the two services came under one umbrella, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) but they were separated. OfS covers the education part of universities' remit, RE the research bit.)

Exactly. If not complying with gender ideology is hate speech, then equally, not complying with the gc Forstater views are exactly the same.

Either they both are, or neither is.

It's not just the content of the pro-trans policies that were criticised by the OfS, but also the way in which they were adopted:

The OfS found a breach of condition E2 in respect of the university’s failure to have adequate and effective management and governance arrangements in place to ensure that it operates in accordance with its governing documents. The Prevent Steering Group approved and adopted the 2021 version of the university’s Freedom of Speech Code of Practice despite that group not having delegated authority to do so. The 2023 version of the External Speakers’ Procedure was approved by the University Executive Group despite that group not having delegated authority to do so. The University Executive Group also approved the 2022 and 2023 versions of the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement, despite that group not having delegated authority to do so.
[my emphasis].

Note that some of the breaches were in 2022 and 2023, during the tenure of the current VC.

Not necessarily true.

Believing in sex is WORIADS. It's been tested in court.
Believing that TWAW is not tested in court. It could be very much the case that it isn't protected because you can't change sex and sex is not gender. Therefore harassing someone for changing gender may not be ok, just the same as abusing someone for being a goth. But compelling anyone to be compelled to uphold the idea may very much be NWORIADS because there's too many conflicts and problems with that. And ultimately no one actually really believes it because how can you be trans if sex doesn't exist?! The whole point is you say you are opposed to the sex you are born. If you abolish the concept of sex then by default there is no gender identity to protect! It'd just be women criticising women for unwomanliness which is just being mean rather than having a legal status!!

Gender Identity can't exist without sex. That's the ridiculous paradox. If you can't see sex you can't protect lesbians. But neither can you protect transwomen's special status.

The whole point is they want to have their cake and eat it and have this double status of protection and have this elevated status as untouchable and above women in the hierarchy.

The whole thing is about power and control. That's not equality that imposing yourself on others and trying to force them into capitulation. So it falls apart on contact with reality.

It's not about the toilets. It's not about the ability to compete at sport. It's about the use of women as a commodity to validate (or to get off on). Otherwise third spaces would be fine to use and open categories would be perfectly acceptable. The fact there is such hostility to this, and the insistent that women MUST go along with it, demonstrates that it's not about wishing to have equality and respect.

the investigation focused on policies, not on the university's practical failure to prevent harassment and bullying, or the specifics of Stock's case.

From the article it was these policies that caused a chilling effect:

My comments were more about the Universities responsibilities as a whole. ie even if you have some flawed policies (ie amping up the who is the most vicim victim in the pecking order) ganging up, bullying, insulting staff (whose side are you on) by students should not be tolerated. And even if you think your policy is faultless, you would point out that it isn't a green light to intimidate and bully someone.

This is always the problems with "investigations" or whatever. They are confined, ie limited by the brief.

So agree that having written the policy they did the University should have been found to be a fault - exposed as being ridiculously captured.

But they still failed in terms of creating an environment where all students are respected.

But I suppose if the formal inquiry wasn't interested in that aspect, although I would have thought it was the logical conclusion. The the University created through its policy an atmosphere that would allow students to think they were merely enforcing the University policy.

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/

Bloody brilliant article by Stock!

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

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/

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.

“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.

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

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.

“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?"

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.

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.

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?

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