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

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.

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.

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 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.

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/

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.,

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😄

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).

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...🙄

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.

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

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.

Roseneil said: “Obviously she left long before I arrived but it is deeply regrettable that Kathleen [Stock] wasn’t supported to the extent that she felt able to stay working at Sussex. I regret that.”

Well, that's an unusual way of saying:

"We sat back and did nothing, as Dr. Stock was bullied, harassed and subject to threats of violence. In fact, some faculty members were instrumental in carrying out these illegal actions. We lost big time at her Employment Tribunal, as we didn't have a leg to stand on."

I don’t think there was a tribunal, which they would undoubtedly have lost. ISTR she got an undisclosed settlement.

This whole debate is about a tipping point regarding what’s reasonable. Whether it’s policies informing the curriculum or how a member of staff is treated. Once an ideology takes hold and is backed by vociferous nasty people, there is a problem. Any employer can deal with such behaviour though. They discipline the students and staff. Other employers would not tolerate this. If it’s gross misconduct, it’s a sacking offence if found “guilty”. We need to bring all of this back to decent sensible and legal employment policies and also what’s expected of students. They don’t have unfettered rights of protest or bullying.

I can see free speech can be an issue but again there’s a tipping point when it turns into hate. It goes too far. Sussex just sat by and let factions do what they wanted and then altered their teaching policies to reflect this minority. I might be wrong but I suspect Oxford and Cambridge haven’t.

What lecturer thinks Sussex is a good employer now? What reasonable person thinks these nasty students should have been allowed to get away with this unchallenged? We need to have universities that can understand where the tipping point is and actually understand there is employment and other legislation to deal with unacceptable behaviour. Instead they condoned it.

I agree. The university should have made it clear at the time that harassment and threats to staff and students wouldn’t be tolerated. And no, people disagreeing with your ideology and advocating for other groups isn’t “harassment” by default.

Yes that is an interesting statement - Doc Stock left in 2021, VC Roseneil was appointed in 2022 - I know a week is a long time in politics, but is a year such a long time in higher education??

'K wasn't supported' is, as SinnerBoy suggests, very passive.

Sussex could have 'supported' KS till the cows came home, 'supporting' her could have been paying for the security systems in her home, or for close protection as she walked around her own campus, but what was needed was action against her persecutors, and action to remove the policies which curbed her right to academic freedom.

The uni could have 'supported' Doc Stock by buying her an armoured personnel carrier to commute to work and move safely around the campus - there you go, KS is fully supported, job done, no regrets.

Statements full of things like regrets, outrage, motivations, suspicions, victimisation, bias, etc., are missing the point about what actually happened.

Staff members should have been disciplined and some students should have been kicked out if they continued following a warning.

It's a quasi-religious belief that people have a 'soul' that is their inner identity. It's completely subjective. There are no blood tests, no scans, no psychological tests or anything that can demonstrate the existence of this mythical 'gender identity'.

As with any religious belief those who don't believe have the freedom to dispute & mock that belief within the confines of the EA2010. Those promoting this religion have no right to impose their beliefs on others & must also work within the confines of the EA2010.

Ereshkigalangcleg · Today 11:18

I don’t think there was a tribunal, which they would undoubtedly have lost. ISTR she got an undisclosed settlement.

Thanks - I was looking up the result just now and couldn't find it and was wondered why. Now I know!

Universities are a business. I am not sure this is the best business model to pursue - it seems very personal from the VC. The damage to the university and the impact on whether children and their parents chose Sussex as the place to spend their money is at stake. I would want to draw a line under it. People like to stick their own money into places of stability, longevity and into one that benefits them (one that makes their children employable afterwards). You google Sussex Uni and this is the first thing that comes up. It’s going to keep on coming up as the VC pursues it. What does the endpoint look like?
In the meantime what type of atmosphere and what type of student will their future cohorts be?

They are already losing lucrative international students because of separate issues around visas, and having this story all over the news at a time of year when people might be considering options for their DC might not help them get UK students rushing to sign up either!

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

https://x.com/sianberry/status/1905376991307858214

"The University of Sussex is a very special part of Brighton, facing a huge, disproportionate fine from the Office for Students. Today I stuck up for it and asked Ministers to look at how the regulator handled this, and the risks to equalities on other campuses"

"Today I stuck up for it and asked Ministers to look at how the regulator handled this, and the risks to equalities on other campuses"

It's the policies that are causing 'the risk to equalities on other campuses'.

This shouldn't be a difficult concept.

Last year there was a big controversy at UCL, which had set engineering students a task to design something for the LGBT+ It caused huge upset as so many of the students were from conservative overseas countries, and many of the students didn't want or feel able to take part. Embassies were consulted, UCL had to offer an alternative, LGBT+ campaigners were furious.....Looks like UCL need the overseas students so they listened.

roarnews.co.uk/2024/lgbtq-project-controversy-engineering-students-complain-to-department/