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'd never heard of the Office for Students. This is quite the surprise.

Although this ruling is good, positive even, the fact is this behaviour still continues. Not just in unversities, theatre etc..

The difference between saying or even debate how you dont think their view point is valid, and turning yourself into a gang of bullies and whining about what a hard time you are having.

Isn't that one of the life skills you are meant to gain in addition to whatever course you have signed up to. Mixing with a far wider range of people than you have experienced.

Not learning that if you gang up and are hostile enough you can bulldoze through what you want to be the excepted norm and anyone who disagrees is to be isolated and got rid of.

Sorry if this has already been posted. I somehow lost contact with this thread.

Prof Roseneil, the vice chancellor at the university, said the OfS findings mean "it makes it almost impossible for universities to have any policies that will control how people speak or relate to each other on campuses".

She added: "It's free speech absolutism and puts free speech above all else. And the only thing that universities will effectively be able to do is regulate unlawful speech."

Prof Roseneil explained she believed the university could only take action against antisemitic or anti-Muslim propaganda if it was actually illegal which is a "very high bar".

https://news.sky.com/story/university-of-sussex-to-challenge-585-000-fine-by-regulator-over-transgender-free-speech-case-13335905

To me this suggests that they have or a deliberately not dealing with the manner and gang behaviour that was happening.

Its one thing have a disagreement because of holding opposing views, it is another to be intimidated and harassed.

Its a bit like the police non hate hate crimes. Can you run a university or any other organisation based accepting that if one person says they feel violated by a comment, means their view has precedent. What if all students did this about everything.

Not forgetting the role the university played in basically acting in a biased way. ie claiming TWAW is totally acceptable and must be believed by everyone, but saying sex is a biological fact must not be said or believed.

In a way saying it is just a free speech issue is not dealing with the fact that this universities (and others) has not been able or does not want to tell students that they cannot do whatever they want. They have to learn how to live in a society where there are many groups of people with widely varying view points.

This student probably dont behave like this at home and in their local community. Somehow they have got the idea that at university they are entitled to be bullies.

“Not learning that if you gang up and are hostile enough you can bulldoze through what you want to be the excepted norm and anyone who disagrees is to be isolated and got rid of.” I think this nails it, @IwantToRetire

Unfortunately, some academics have confused bullying with ‘organising to defend your rights’ …

Here is an interesting, fairly factual take from Higher Ed blog Wonkhe for those who want to know more about what exactly Sussex was fined for: https://wonkhe.com/blogs/sussex-fined-almost-600k-over-free-speech/

I think we have more than enough evidence from tribunal testimonies to confidently answer "no' to that.

Yup. I can report that a great many academics are self-identified intellectual giants, and by now we all know what that means

That is really interesting.

From the article, 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:

• A requirement for “any materials within relevant courses and modules [to] positively represent trans people and trans lives.” OfS refers to this as the Positive Representation Statement throughout its report;
• A statement that “the curriculum shall not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people”. It refers to this as the Stereotyping Statement;
• A statement that “transphobic propaganda … will not be tolerated.” It refers to this as the Transphobic Propaganda Statement;
• A statement that “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying (name-calling/derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures.” It refers to this as the Disciplinary Statement.

The university dropped the first requirement in 2023, (how did it take so long? Was there nobody at the university who understood why this was a problem?), but I would have thought that by definition, stereotypes, propaganda and abuse are bad? (And irrelevant to Stock who is not guilty of any of these things).

Is the problem that internal policies like this are open to misinterpretation, and the University should just be complying with the law?

Editing to add: But then should universities be getting rid of all similar policies?

Good, good, good. So pleased they have done this. Hopefully all the VCs out there who did not supervise Sally Hines’s PhD and who are not up to their necks in TRA slurry will be watching and learning.

All power to Doc Stock. Bloody legend that she is. I hope Kim Hill from RNZ hears about this and realises that her totally shitty interview with Kathleen was an embarrassment to women in New Zealand and maybe she owes her and GC kiwi women who have been totally silenced and humiliated an apology for treating the issue with disdain and ridicule rather than giving it the legitimate attention it deserves from serious media over here.

A requirement for “any materials within relevant courses and modules [to] positively represent trans people and trans lives.” OfS refers to this as the Positive Representation Statement throughout its report;

I just find this sort of stuff baffling. Where on the world do they think they get off saying that trans ppl must only ever, ever! be represented in a positive way. I mean it’s batshit. Is there any other cohort of society that goes around saying it must only be represented in a positive way?

Key phrase:
Freedom of speech within the law is protected. Unlawful speech is not protected. However, there is no need to point to a specific legal basis for speech. Instead, the starting point is that speech is permitted unless restricted by law.
Free speech includes lawful speech that may be offensive or hurtful to some. Speech that amounts to unlawful harassment or unlawful incitement to hatred or violence (for instance) does not constitute free speech within the law and is not protected.

So basically you can say anything if you have a legitimate public interest to say, if you can demonstrate / explain a legitimate concern. This needs evidenced examples of issues. In this case, we all know there's a legitimate concern that women's sex based rights under the equality act are being harmed AND there are potential harms for lesbians under both sex based rights and homosexual rights AND there are potential harms for autistic people under disability rights AND there are potential harm for anyone who identifies as trans. Stocks argument about lesbians is the particularly compelling one - how do you protect lesbian rights if you have to accept a women can have a penis? It makes no sense and is legally and morally incomprehensible.

It's literally the public debate we've been having that's been upheld on numerous occasions as being valid.

Even if your argument is 'unlawful' you still can make a public interest argument if you can come up with a public interest argument about why the law is wrong and unfair if you can highlight an injustice which is a public scandal. Call this the newspaper escape clause if you will. The key parts are legitimate concern and public interest - which highlight and demonstrate harms to society (basically there's enough broad public support for your argument - that's where the majority of people recognising and believing sex is real is fundamental even if legally not explicitly protected which we now have recognised).

You can't harass and target people over it - so you can't send millions of letters to a trans charity or bother a trans forum. But in a group for LGBTQ people, it's fair...

The 'chilling effect' is basically wanting no debate, but that ship has firmly sailed.

Legally this is not new territory. It's basically the same principles that's been in place for years over what you can and can't say in a newspaper without getting successfully sued for liable and defamation. Newspapers are supposed to uphold freedom of speech principles in a democracy by holding power to account - it's one of the pillars of our society!! So I REALLY don't get why universities have having a hissy fit over this.

I studied it at university!

It is batshit. And goes against principles of democracy where you can criticise anything or anyone if there is a public interest argument! A known conflict over rights absolutely falls under that remit.

They are above the laws of democracy and fair play didn’t you know… it doesn’t apply to the enlightened ones.

The quote higher up that a university person was saying that meant no policies were allowed. that is fine with me as we have the law. If the law allows a statement - I support Israel or Victory to Palestine or the biology of a female being set out then just go with the law. You don't need a whole load of other policies.

What I have seen is some of my Gen Z children learning a lot at university and school (which is great), learning new ideas, always having different views from mine of course in this family (pity I could not produce clones as it would have been easier), but also some fairly left wing views but then they emerge into the normal world, work place etc and become more normal again (one even voted the same way I did at the last general election. It has been interesting observing it. However I still feel the universities need to do a lot less censorship and just present different ideas even ideas they hate and of course even allow facts to be stated even if they hate the facts themselves.

They need to be less concerned about people being upset and they should physically protect students eg Jewish students on campus (and indeed muslim ones) and stop people being shouted down in debates - students need to learn that we let each person speak, we listen with respect and then destroy them with good argument.

They idea that universities can't tell what harassment is, is deeply concerning on many levels.

Not least because we know university campuses have an issue with women being sexually harassed...

These ideals of 'duty of care' and what universities have responsibilities about seems really rather selective.

Doc Stock's take is impressive as always.

Fortunes are changing in the culture war Sussex University should move on
https://archive.is/dOEGl#selection-1331.0-1333.32

Sorry I haven't FTFT but this is great news.

Here's how my union branch reacted to the situation: https://bsky.app/profile/ducu.bsky.social

The Equality Act itself acknowledges the possibility of conflicts between protected characteristics. Anyone in HR should understand these are legitimate and not hierarchical. It boggles my mind that we are where we are with institutions full of supposedly smart people. It's basic level stuff as far as I'm concerned.

She is so classy. I love her closing line.

What universities should consider is how they deal with harassment. Of students and staff by students and staff. If legal and legitimate views are expressed, a person doing so should be free from harassment. I’m amazed universities cannot see this is required and staff and students should be disciplined.

Sadly Sussex is not the only university where this type of behaviour occurs, it’s almost become the norm in education and many other areas to only be allowed to express an opinion that agrees with those that shout loudest, free speech is being squeezed, people are scared to express their opinion.

I think this is where these additional policies are causing problems, particularly if they are proposed by interest groups - they create an additional layer of compliance, but with no requirement for the overall policy to be consistent or balanced or to comply with the law.

Trying to relate it to something that concerns me, am I more protected from sexism if a company or institution has an internal equality policy? Do I need this in addition to the law?

Very interesting article, thanks Meanacademic. 'Fairly factual', as you described it, and fair play to the writer who demonstrates that it is possible to disagree with something, but still summarise it accurately, while letting your feelings show in comments outside the summary.

I noticed something disturbing :
'There will also be questions about Arif Ahmed himself.'
Well, there will be now that you have said that, Jim Dickinson!

VC Roseneil also said something about the investigation being 'politically motivated'.

It's beginning to sound a bit like Cass, isn't it? undermine the author, and imply they are not independent, if you don't like what the report says.

The graffiti was cleaned up, there were images on Twitter of estates workers scrubbing it off and students taunting them with ‘whose side are you on’?

Wow, this is stark isn't it? Such a graphic illustration of what we've been saying all along about trans activism being a stance of the privileged.

How awful for those workers, who presumably just needed to keep their jobs.

A fairly lively debate in the comments of that piece.