Sussex University overturns £585,000 fine as high court rejects free speech breach claim

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/apr/29/sussex-university-overturns-fine-free-speech-kathleen-stock?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=bluesky&CMP=bsky_gu

sorry to send you to the guardian.

Consider this to be bad news indeed.

Have just found this, published today:

Regulatory ‘rethink and reset’ required after Sussex ruling
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/regulatory-rethink-and-reset-required-after-sussex-ruling and https://archive.is/wOYyk

Lol they’re constantly resetting! I think this probably refers to the new-ish OfS strategy for 2025-2030 ie much broader than just freedom of speech

Thank you, I understand and agree with what you are saying. My regret is that the judgment was NOT about Sussex Uni's violation of free speech.

I promise not to lock you in my cellar, if you promise not to [a] steal my wallet, and [b] accept that I understand what you are saying, and that I am complaining about what the judgement is not, not what it is

[Shush everyone - don't tell MoreDangerousThanAWomanScorned that I don't actually have a cellar, so she can steal my wallet, and post an infinite number of posts explaining the judgement to me, with impunity]

Jo Phoenix has written a blog. She's not happy.

Today’s blog is about a single phrase, on page 56 of the judgment.

“Irrelevant considerations.”

That is the phrase Mrs Justice Lieven uses, at paragraph 271, to describe the chilling effect on academic freedom and the stress and anxiety inflicted on academics. Irrelevant. Not ‘relevant but insufficient’. Not ‘present but outweighed’. Irrelevant. To breach the academic freedom principle, the judgment tells us, an academic must be in jeopardy of losing their job. Not in jeopardy of disciplinary process. Not at risk of psychological injury or even at risk of unlawful harassment and discrimination. Not subject to a chilling effect “however harmful that might be.”

https://jophoenix.substack.com/p/irrelevant-considerations

Freddie Attenborough's take on the verdict, apparently the Uni spent more money fighting the fine than the actual fine was 🤯 and these are the countries brightest!!!!

"Part of the problem lies in the High Court’s restrictive interpretation of what counts as a ‘governing document’. "

"Filtered through various committees and working groups, often dominated by activist staff in rainbow lanyards, these EDI policies and harassment codes are what now regulate much of what can and cannot be said on campus. The result is a whole layer of policies that, in practice, function as the ‘documents that govern’ university life will no longer be treated as ‘governing documents’ that the OfS can scrutinise."

The High Court has rewarded Kathleen Stock’s persecutors - spiked

@Imnobody4 It is irrelevant. It’s the process used by OFS that was at fault!!! Nothing about feelings.

Regulatory ‘rethink and reset’ required after Sussex ruling
By Jack Grove in Times Higher:
archive.is/wOYyk

Already posted upthread!

Point of order: both the spiked article and Jo Phoenix’s article are incorrect that the court/its judgement determined that academic freedom is only breached if an academic is in danger of losing their job and/or privileges. That is literally the definition of academic freedom laid down in the HE Freedom of Speech Act, and wasn’t up for interpretation. (Whether or not the legal framework is fit for purpose is however a moot point…..)

argh thanks - I only saw the subscriber link - didn't spot the archive

No worries - not even sure how important it is. But adds to the fallout from the court case or rather the decision.

I don't think this will be the last we hear of this case and I hope this decision doesn't stand.

Amen to that!

Great article on just read it. I’m sure they will appeal. They have to or why bother existing. Shame it will take so long.