Page 3 | University of Sussex fined £585,000 by Office for Students

OhBuggerandArse · 2025-03-25T21:34:36+00:00

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

PriOn1 · 26/03/2025 06:38

Helleofabore · 26/03/2025 04:31

Every week another bit of the dodgy foundations crumble away showing that it really is turtles all the way down.

And yet those with their houses built on those crumbling foundations aren’t looking to move somewhere safer and rebuild. They’re standing shaking their fists as the stones and bricks tumble around them.

Glad to see the fine is significant. Sad (and honestly bizarre) that the university still refuses to see reason.

It rather begs the question, how much are they getting paid to push gender ideology such that even a sizeable fine doesn’t cause a moment of reflection?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 26/03/2025 06:39

PriOn1 · 26/03/2025 06:38

And yet those with their houses built on those crumbling foundations aren’t looking to move somewhere safer and rebuild. They’re standing shaking their fists as the stones and bricks tumble around them.

Glad to see the fine is significant. Sad (and honestly bizarre) that the university still refuses to see reason.

It rather begs the question, how much are they getting paid to push gender ideology such that even a sizeable fine doesn’t cause a moment of reflection?

Edited

Show quote history

I mean, this is the really scary question, isn't it?

Why?

Why are they pretending to believe in this nonsense? What's in it for them?

Someone very rich and powerful must be pushing this agenda.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 26/03/2025 06:52

Brilliant news, well done Kathleen Stock for fighting back. Another nail in the coffin of No Debate. 😀👏

Hoardasurass · 26/03/2025 06:52

lcakethereforeIam · 25/03/2025 22:06

Does anyone know if they can appeal? The University doesn't seem in the least bit contrite

The university, ranked joint 26th out of 104 UK institutions in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2024, has reacted furiously. Sasha Roseneil, the university’s vice-chancellor, said the regulator had decreed “free speech absolutism as the fundamental principle” for universities.

She seems to be equating that GC 'beliefs' (sex is real, immutable and sometimes it matters) with the nastier types of speech

...added that the ruling made it now “virtually impossible for universities to prevent abuse, harassment or bullying, to protect groups subject to harmful propaganda, or to determine that stereotyped assumptions should not be relied upon in the university curriculum”.

The group they notably failed to protect, the one 'subject to harmful propaganda' is the one commonly labelled 'terfs' and 'transphobic'.

Can anyone explain what she means by 'stereotyped assumptions'...etc?

I admit I had no idea this investigation was happening. Doc Stock, by not commenting, is showing class. I hope she has a glass of something nice, though I imagine it's bittersweet.

I would presume she ment that gc people saying twam and should use the men's facilities with other men not the women's would fit that bill.
Along with anyone pointing out that men who enter and use female changing facilities are committing the crimes of voyeurism and indecent exposure regardless of their gender identity

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 26/03/2025 07:24

Meanacademic · 26/03/2025 06:26

This is an extraordinary outcome. But it is important to think carefully about the timeline here. This did not happen on the current VC’s watch, and in any case, VCs generally do not get involved in the day-to-day running of faculties and departments.

The questions one should be asking are: who was Stock’s line manager at the time? Who was running the Faculty? Heads of Department have limited power, it is Schools and Faculties that matter, the next level up. The bullying started well before the pandemic, in 2018 or 2019 when Stock first intervened in the debate.

Were any of the employees that bullied Stock ever disciplined? There were plenty who posted abusive messages online. Who at Sussex UCU wrote this appalling statement? Who wrote the trans policy? This is not VC-level stuff.

Finally, if we can learn anything from various GC cases at universities, it is that the role of staff networks is crucial. They are essentially activist interest groups that are given resources by universities to push for policies that may actually not be in the interest of the organisation as a whole. Sussex, being in Brighton, must have had a very active trans and non-binary staff network. Who led this network? And were there any links to local activist groups? Was the university under pressure from these groups, threatened, for example, to be excluded from events such as Brighton Pride? Brighton has always been the ground zero of trans extremism in the UK, so this is surely relevant.

I hate what happened to Stock but this wasn’t the current VC’s doing and she now has to defend a huge mess that others made. She seems unlikely to want to sack some senior people who were in positions of responsibility at the time but perhaps she should consider it.

It may not be the current VC’s issue but she’s doubling down on it and by the sound of it completely agrees with what went on.

We have to hope that the penny will drop for these people at some point, the amount of money they’re wasting on this unnecessary litigation is certainly not helping their students is it?

popefully · 26/03/2025 07:28

MarieDeGournay · 25/03/2025 22:58

I just checked on the OfS website - this investigation was started in 2021, so this para from the FT:

The decision comes after US vice-president JD Vance last month lectured Sir Keir Starmer, UK prime minister, on the need to defend free speech during an encounter in the Oval Office. Elon Musk, the tech billionaire and adviser and donor to President Donald Trump, has also claimed that Britain is stifling free expression.

is so sneaky! It's chronologically accurate, it did come after Vance's speech, but it had nothing to do with it.

They could have said with equal accuracy:
'The decision comes after Tranmere Rovers sacked Nigel Adkins' or
'The decision comes after the Franco-Prussian war' or
'The decision comes just over a week after St Patrick's Day' or
'The decision comes after an investigation which started in 2021.'

But no, they had to drag Trump in, didn't they?🙄

Agreed, I always look out for these things and they sometimes read like a parody! Such a mealy mouthed way of trying to link things that aren't necessarily linked.

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 26/03/2025 07:30

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 26/03/2025 06:39

I mean, this is the really scary question, isn't it?

Why?

Why are they pretending to believe in this nonsense? What's in it for them?

Someone very rich and powerful must be pushing this agenda.

Show quote history

Well we know big pharma in the US are making a fortune from it, they’re guaranteed patients for life aren’t they, even just from the hormones that are being prescribed, let alone the butchery surgery that is carried out? It’s always about money in the end.

Longsummerdays25 · 26/03/2025 07:33

This is doing irreparable damage to the university of Sussex.

What person in their right mind would ever encourage their dc to ever study there now?? They will be PAYING £9000 a year for pure brainwashing, and being muzzled and made to self-censor.

It is a ludicrous, untenable situation, and they are still unrepentant.

I found this particularly chilling the university accused the regular of:

‘Entrenching an extreme libertarian free speech position’

Otherwise known as bog standard free speech in a democracy to the rest of us. What the actual hell? It’s utterly mind blowing.

Retiredfromthere · 26/03/2025 07:54

@Meanacademic You say (and I agree that ) 'This did not happen on the current VC’s watch, and in any case, VCs generally do not get involved in the day-to-day running of faculties and departments.' However academics who have been active researchers in an area who then become VC don't suddenly become neutral and uninterested in the area they spent their academic lives in.

This is not a situation where the VC is making some limp-wristed 'the previous VC did it' argument. This is a 'we were right side of history' with a call to arms feel about it aimed at other universities. Three things that are interesting about this VC and her response ...

This short speech on Freedom of Speech at the summer 2024 graduation ceremony. She mentions things like climate change and ethnic diversity (safe stuff) but does not mention gender critical beliefs. She presents a view of academic freedom where she and Sussex are good guys and 'as long as its legal we will listen to other opinions'. (But if there is a policy that threatens real life sanctions for expressing opinions that are legal they won't be expressed on this campus will they? A campus being investigated for impeding academic freedom.)

This is someone whose previous job was as first Pro-Provost for Equity and Inclusion at UCL. She has not just an academic interest in the gender wars, she is someone who was in charge of operations as recently as 2021.

The imposition of fines came in January (source BBC article, not checked). So there was no threat of this scale of fine until very recently. But there was a three year investigation coming to a close by the time of the speech captured on YouTube. It definitely feels like window dressing.

That speech offers no reflection on the bullying of Dr Stocks or the policies in place that prevented free speech about gender identity on campus. I don't think this is accidental. This VC tells us her views in her response to the fine.

Villagetoraiseachild · 26/03/2025 08:00

Could not be more delighted!

Soontobe60 · 26/03/2025 08:04

MarieDeGournay · 26/03/2025 00:10

After all the outrage from the Sussex VC about the unfairness of the fine, the BBC report states:
The policy at the heart of the investigation had been adapted from a template, according to the university, and had since been changed.

So they didn't actually write the policy that got them into so much trouble themselves, they just cut and pasted a template, and they have since ditched it?

Which sounds very like 'A template did it, and ran away'!

Was it a Stonewall template I wonder?

Shortshriftandlethal · 26/03/2025 08:10

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 26/03/2025 07:30

Well we know big pharma in the US are making a fortune from it, they’re guaranteed patients for life aren’t they, even just from the hormones that are being prescribed, let alone the butchery surgery that is carried out? It’s always about money in the end.

Show quote history

There will most likely be research grants from some big U.S based charity.......such as the George Soros 'Open Society' foundation, or similar.

GCAcademic · 26/03/2025 08:11

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 26/03/2025 07:24

It may not be the current VC’s issue but she’s doubling down on it and by the sound of it completely agrees with what went on.

We have to hope that the penny will drop for these people at some point, the amount of money they’re wasting on this unnecessary litigation is certainly not helping their students is it?

Show quote history

Absolutely. It's hard to think of another VC in the sector who would make such an intemperate and wrong-headed statement - one that is completely at odds with the values that they are supposed to uphold.

Taytoface · 26/03/2025 08:13

I have never heard of the Office for Students. How come it has taken them this long to rear their head. This shit has been getting steadily worse over the last decade.

DeanElderberry · 26/03/2025 08:17

'An English university is set to be fined a record £585,000 over allegations it failed to uphold free speech and academic freedom . . . . .

Surely it isn't being fined 'over accusations', it's being fined for its actions.

They own what they did.

LSGXX · 26/03/2025 08:18

EXCELLENT. Let’s hope it sends a message to other universities.

GCAcademic · 26/03/2025 08:20

Taytoface · 26/03/2025 08:13

I have never heard of the Office for Students. How come it has taken them this long to rear their head. This shit has been getting steadily worse over the last decade.

They're the sector regulator. They've issued warnings before, but Stock's case was distinctive as this was (I think) the first time someone in a permanent academic post has been hounded out of their job by students and colleagues. Why it took four years to run this investigation is another question - though at least no one can say it was a rushed job.

NoBinturongsHereMate · 26/03/2025 08:22

Taytoface · 26/03/2025 08:13

I have never heard of the Office for Students. How come it has taken them this long to rear their head. This shit has been getting steadily worse over the last decade.

It was set up in 2018.

HaveYouActuallyDoneAnyWashingThisWeekMum · 26/03/2025 08:22

They deserved this. They’ve made themselves look like idiots. No chance my DC will attend this university - seems to be full of sheep, in both the student and teaching cohorts.

SinnerBoy · 26/03/2025 08:23

Roseneil claimed the regulator had “refused to speak to us” and that the fine imposed was “wholly disproportionate”. She said the university had defended Stock’s right to pursue her academic work and express her “lawful beliefs”.

That is a bare faced lie; they pulled out all the stops to facilitate bullying and harassing her.

Keenovay · 26/03/2025 08:26

Taytoface · 26/03/2025 08:13

I have never heard of the Office for Students. How come it has taken them this long to rear their head. This shit has been getting steadily worse over the last decade.

I'm not sure - it has existed since Jan 2018. The Conservatives then passed the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act in Dec 2023 which seems to have informed this ruling but sounds like the investigation started prior to that in 2022.

Xenia · 26/03/2025 08:28

A good decision. Free speech should prevail in universities. if that upsets some students they can go to their room and have a cry.

fromorbit · 26/03/2025 08:31

withthegreatestrespect · 26/03/2025 00:05

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said free speech and academic freedom were "non-negotiables" in universities.
"I have been clear that where those principles are not upheld, robust action will be taken," she said.
"If you go to university you must be prepared to have your views challenged, hear contrary opinions and be exposed to uncomfortable truths.
"We are giving the OfS stronger powers on freedom of speech so students and academics are not muzzled by the chilling effect demonstrated in this case."

This is a key element. If Phillipson follows through there could be significant impacts in the many Universities which are sexist.

Will she follow through? Very big reasons she has to there is no way Labour want to go into the net election vs Tories/Reform being the party that is on the side of bigoted academics.

AnSolas · 26/03/2025 08:41

Meanacademic · 26/03/2025 06:26

This is an extraordinary outcome. But it is important to think carefully about the timeline here. This did not happen on the current VC’s watch, and in any case, VCs generally do not get involved in the day-to-day running of faculties and departments.

The questions one should be asking are: who was Stock’s line manager at the time? Who was running the Faculty? Heads of Department have limited power, it is Schools and Faculties that matter, the next level up. The bullying started well before the pandemic, in 2018 or 2019 when Stock first intervened in the debate.

Were any of the employees that bullied Stock ever disciplined? There were plenty who posted abusive messages online. Who at Sussex UCU wrote this appalling statement? Who wrote the trans policy? This is not VC-level stuff.

Finally, if we can learn anything from various GC cases at universities, it is that the role of staff networks is crucial. They are essentially activist interest groups that are given resources by universities to push for policies that may actually not be in the interest of the organisation as a whole. Sussex, being in Brighton, must have had a very active trans and non-binary staff network. Who led this network? And were there any links to local activist groups? Was the university under pressure from these groups, threatened, for example, to be excluded from events such as Brighton Pride? Brighton has always been the ground zero of trans extremism in the UK, so this is surely relevant.

I hate what happened to Stock but this wasn’t the current VC’s doing and she now has to defend a huge mess that others made. She seems unlikely to want to sack some senior people who were in positions of responsibility at the time but perhaps she should consider it.

The VC gets paid the 300k to lead.
The instruction to review staff conduct policy organisations policy etc etc it all flowing from that leadership role.
If the culture is rotten its her job to fix it.

She has no need to defend anybodys mess. She could have opted to be a new broom.
And if she was hired in to run a defence for passed actions as an objective thats on her.

She /the Uni could accept that the finding was partly correct and partly incorrect. That some changes were needed and being implemented to ensure the Uni is seen to be protecting lawful speech while unlawful speech will be not allowed.

The Uni could accept but say they needed to seek clarification on how the Uni regulate between free speech and unlawful speech.

She is highly educated and experienced in management. She knew there was a problem which posed a reputational risk to her and also to the Uni and she took the job.

If she took the job without being given the backing to close down networks and remove staff she was foolish.

Her leadership page has a free speech blurb

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/about/who/leadership/vice-chancellor

But any decison to fight the full report findings without a we are changing too is saying that the old culture was fine. Thats her field of teaching and work life so if she did not understand that she was the wrong pick for the role.

Professor Sasha Roseneil: Vice-Chancellor : Our leadership : ... : About us : University of Sussex

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/about/who/leadership/vice-chancellor

RedToothBrush · 26/03/2025 08:44

There has always been a reality, that until it starts to become costly to ignore women's rights and safeguarding, then this will persist.

But as insurance premiums for medical practice, legal bill rack up and huge fines are slapped out, it starts to become much more difficult to ignore women and safeguarding.

Funny that.

Its almost as if women are lesser and are thought of as worthless.