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

Thanks for letting me know.

Pleasure.

😂

The TEF and funding model of student fees has decimated the quality of university education.

Interested to hear more on why you think this is? (Not in a snarky way)

It doesn’t disappoint me, I was expecting it.

Agree: an issue is free speech vs behavior (antisocial, criminal or against policy)

Universities should take action against behavior. Free speech is not free behavior.

Student against “name the cause” spray paints and destroys an artwork they disagree with. That is not free speech. Today some think the behavior action is justified because the thing protesting they think demands action & thus it’s justified.

they will learn if they are expelled, punished and fined. Not coddled by soft leadership. If coddled, They will be emboldened & do more harm.

@popefully We, as a county, expanded university education in the 1960s with new universities (Surrey, Warwick etc) and established the polytechnics. We then, in 1992 allowed colleges of HE, polys, teacher training colleges and art colleges to become universities. They then all offered degrees and most of what they now teach are degrees or post grad degrees.

So who pays? In 1970 around 8% went to university, now it’s 38%. So we have fees to pay for this huge increase in numbers. International students can pay 3 times as much. It’s inevitable that the state could not afford this whacking growth. Should the hospital porter pay for all undergrads? Or should those earning the most, because they have a degree education, contribute the most? It has to be the latter if we want this volume of undergrads. I think we have too many but this is why they pay - access to HE they did not have previously.

There's a lot of presumption on this thread about the perceived beliefs of Sasha Roseneil.

At UCL she was Pro-Provost (Equity and Inclusion) [in addition to her day job of being Dean of the Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences] when, in 2021, UCL's senior leadership team stood by the decision of the Academic Board to end UCL's involvement in Stonewall's workplace equality index and diversity champions programme. That was a highly unpopular decision among certain groups but she and the Provost stood fast in the face of a barrage of negative criticism.

I don't know much about Adam Tickell but the fact that he was VC of Sussex during the period when there was allowed to be a physically hostile atmosphere on campus, does not inspire me to think of him as someone willing to take a stance to enforce or defend unpopular decisions.

I know which of the two I have more confidence in their attempt to maintain a tolerant environment.

#TeamSasha

I haven't seen much about 'presumption on this thread about the perceived beliefs of Sasha Roseneil' - there has been some, of course but overall, there has been reaction to what she actually wrote, what she said and what she didn't say.

She has failed to acknowledge that what happened to Kathleen Stock was not just a denial of the academic freedom that the VC believes in, but a campaign of harassment that ultimately not only deprived her of her academic freedom, but her ability to tolerate the atmosphere generated by a range of members of the university, staff as well as students.

It's true that the 'physically hostile atmosphere on campus' developed under the VCship of Andrew Tickell, and was inherited by Sasha Roseneil. But was she more proactive than her predecessor in 'tak[ing] a stance to enforce or defend unpopular decisions'? When she took over in 2022, did she oversee a radical overhaul of the pro-trans policies which enabled and emboldened Stock's persecutors? Did she ensure that those responsible for the harassment, staff or students, were disciplined? Has anybody been held to account for what they did? What did she actually do to ensure that what happened to Doc Stock could never happen again in Sussex Uni.?

In other words, is there any hard evidence to back up your confidence in her 'to maintain a tolerant environment.'?

You may know more about her than we do; all we're going on is what she has said, and what she has failed to say, and so far neither inspires confidence.

It's not personal, it's not #teamAndrew or #teamSasha🙄it's an objective response to what she has written.

Shouldn’t really take a day to state what ‘ideals’ of Kathleen Stock you disagree with? Why state something you can’t articulate, on a discussion forum?

The fact the VC isn't accepting they did anything wrong nor reflecting on that says it all. IIRC the police advised Stock to teach online and not go to her workplace due to the level of threats. That's not respectful dissenting views, that's threats and harassment.

And it's not about fucking teams, we're not 4 years old, it's about women's safety and rights.

Neither VC covered themselves in glory here.

@popefully Sure. I’m not sure how close to academia you are. You might know it well.
If I follow on from @TizerorFizz:

1. Students pay (a LOT) for their uni education, albeit via loans which often don’t get paid off. Still there was a shift from them being ‘students’ to becoming a ‘customers’

2. To create a baseline standard for these institutions, they have a structured framework - the Teaching Excellence Framework - which is tested and often ‘gamed’ by the universities. E.g. You’ll have former polytechs scoring better than LSE. I’m not being snobby there - but generally the education they would deliver is simply not comparable in quality because of the resources available to them.

3. As part of the TEF, students are surveyed about their Uni. And if scored low, the uni can get lower score, less funding and specific directives to bring them to a bronze silver or gold standard. There’s a whole section on the questionnaire about perceived ability to get a job after degree. Graduates are also surveyed on their current salary and that is linked with the course they took and has implications. Not taking into account the economy or personal agency of the student.

4. As a result, the arts and humanities have been defunded in this system in favour of business and STEM in many unis. And it leaves lecturers with anxiety that students won’t ‘like’ their course, not perform well, casting risk their work and subject.

5. This is resulting in lower calibre, dumbed-down degree courses while very fundamental subjects like Philosophy or English literature depts closing down. Some have called it the industrialisation of education.

6. There’s also something here about widening participation, which I always feel so cautious speaking about. WP is excellent for some, but there’s no doubt the system has forced some people who want to progress their career into a uni, when they are simply not cut out for it. Apprenticeships and other quals have been devalued and packed into the structure and cost of a degree e.g. nursing. So people apply to uni, uni is only too happy to have their money fill their expanding space to make themselves financially viable. Then the student doesn’t enjoy it, drops out after a year or two with no qual, student debt and that reflects badly on the course and the uni - and funding and framework scores reflect this.

There’s a lot more to this of course. But just touching on it here.

@Thatcat The whole expansion programme in the 60s and through to the 90s was about widening participation and ensuring the new comprehensive schools sent dc to university. It’s just really about the tipping point. When are we sending too many full time students? I’m all for post 18 learning but we need a better variety and the university numbers cap was removed in 2014. Fees tripled to pay for it. Then all the expensive accommodation gets built and debts increase, both for students and many universities. We need to reverse and have more options for middle academic young people.

@AccidentallyWesAnderson If you know how long it takes, then please don’t let me stop you. You’re free to think I can’t articulate something I stated.

Very much agree @TizerorFizz

Why do I need to state what you said for you? I didn’t say I disagreed with Kathleen Stock.

You said you didn’t agree with KS’ ideals but didn’t have the day’s long unpicking it would take. Think anyone would agree to summarise what it is you don’t agree with wouldn’t take a day. Why don’t you have a bash?

I know I’m free to state it, that’s why I stated it although you are managing to evidence this yourself.

You don’t need to state anything for me. You do appear very keen to talk about it, so I’ve said go ahead. I won’t be joining you in that, because I don’t want to. Sorry you’re dissatisfied with that as a reason.

I think are things fundamentally wrong with English law eg breach of the peace even 100 years ago is all about how those around will react to something (same with laws (or lack of laws) on nudity and same with a lot of "hate" speech laws.. When the law is based on how upset the recipient or viewer will feel that is not good law in my view. It is the law of the mob really. However they will not be changing in any time soon.

I think most of us know the basic - if you say or write "I am going to kill you because yo believe in XYZ" that is an illegal threat whereas if we say "You will burn in hell because the bible says so" or "Men are objectively superior to women" or that " person has XX chromosomes" that is in most contexts not illegal.

I heard a snippet of the VC ranting about the unfairness of it on the BBC radio 2 news at 12 today. She said they hadn't been spoken to, that it was a trawl of documents, and they only found one which was a problem.

I thought it was 2, but anyway, of course it didn't cover what the document said.

Jeremy Vine had a phone in about the case at 1pm but I was out of the car by then so missed it but it's probably on iplayer at some point if anyone wants to listen to it.

I don’t disagree with her ideals though, so why would I go ahead, and with what?

‘Very keen’ is over egging it a bit. Just curious as to why typing out what about Kathleen Stock (who forms this thread)’s ideals you stated you disagree with but would take the best part of a say to (not) explain entails. Can’t say I’m too shocked though.

@AccidentallyWesAnderson You said Shouldn’t really take a day to state what ‘ideals’ of Kathleen Stock you disagree with?
Since you are doubtful it takes a day, then you’ve assumed to know what they are. I am uninterested in satisfying your curiosity of my view, as I am in arguing.

We both support the free speech. There’s some common ground.

I don’t, that’s why I’m asking.

What ideals of hers, that you don’t agree with, take a day to articulate? Does anyone else think this is an unreasonable question?

In the time you’ve waffled on displaying such avoidance techniques a politician would be proud of, you probably could’ve just answered. I’m betting it wouldn’t take a day.

It was Maya Forstater versus Peter Tatchell in case anyone is interested

I think it's clear the ideals are that you can't change sex. It really doesn't take a day to unpick as it's biologically impossible to change sex - but I guess the PP doesn't want to get into it because it's very difficult to argue with scientific fact. I think the 'unpicking' refers to the requirement to have to try to explain your irrational beliefs, self delusion and clutching at straws - and who would want to get into that?

I saw this on the BBC and came to look for it on here. Great news.

The VC said elsewhere that they had not had a substantive meeting with the OfS, which is not the same as no meetings.
The OfS may have found the meetings they did have with Sussex sufficiently substantive to get the information they needed.

Looking forward to hearing about the phone-in!