OfS publishes free speech guidance as polling shows one in five academics do not feel free to teach controversial views

The guidance is designed to help institutions navigate their duties under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act to take steps to secure freedom of speech and to have a free speech code of practice. These duties will come into force on 1 August this year.

Unlawful speech is not protected, and the guidance offers examples to show where speech may be contrary to equality, anti-terrorism or public order legislation. The guidance explains that the bar to restrict lawful speech at universities and colleges is particularly high. But it also sets out what scope institutions have to restrict the time, place or manner of lawful speech if it interferes with the core learning, teaching or research functions of the institution.

Institutions must take reasonably practicable steps to secure lawful speech, including – for example – by:

• Supporting constructive dialogue on contentious subjects.
• Amending or terminating agreements with foreign states or institutions enabling censorship on English campuses.
• Not punishing students or staff for lawful expression of a viewpoint, including expression that is critical of the institution.
• Not requiring applicants for academic jobs or promotions to show commitment to a viewpoint.

Arif Ahmed, Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom at the OfS, said:

‘The core mission of universities and colleges is the pursuit of knowledge. Free speech and academic freedom are fundamental to this purpose. Students need to know that they can freely share lawful views and opinions, and be prepared to hear a range of views as part of their studies. This includes things that they may find uncomfortable or shocking. By being exposed to a diversity of academic thought, students will develop their analytical and critical thinking skills.

‘Today’s guidance provides institutions with a range of examples on how to respond – and how not to respond – in different scenarios. These cover contentious topics like international relations and the interaction between free speech and equality obligations. It’s essential that universities keep in mind that there is a very high bar for restricting lawful speech. Ultimately each case will need to be considered on its particular circumstances. But in all cases universities must have particular regard for the importance of freedom of speech.

‘Many institutions have already done significant work to prepare for these new duties, including by reviewing their existing free speech statements and codes of practice. As they progress this work, it’s important to remember that universities can regulate speech where appropriate. No university needs to allow shouting during an exam, or for a maths lecturer to devote their lectures to their own political opinions rather than the subject at hand. Equally, they can and should take steps to address harassing speech on campus. Antisemitic harassment, for example, should not be tolerated on any campus and we fully expect universities to take robust steps to tackle it.

‘This guidance emphasises that freedom of speech is the freedom to impart ideas, opinions or information. Universities may sometimes need to regulate the time, place and manner of the expression – when, where and how you speak – but they can’t ban ideas.’

‘We recognise that getting this right requires work and thought, as has been the case since the late 1980s, when most universities were first subject to statutory free speech requirements. Universities and colleges should continue preparation for their new duties, and we will continue to work constructively with them as they take this important work forward.

‘We are grateful to the individuals and organisations that took the time to respond to our consultation, and we will continue to engage with students and institutions as we take this important work forward. These views have helped us to shape our plans as we prepare for our new responsibilities in this area.’

Susan Lapworth, OfS chief executive, said:

‘The OfS is determined to ensure universities continue to be the essential places in society where academic freedom and free speech within the law are prized and given the utmost protection. Today’s guidance sets out a range of steps we expect universities to take to achieve this. It also explains the latitude each institution has to deliver its essential academic functions – learning, teaching and research – and to rightly protect students from bullying and harassment.’

Alongside the guidance, we are also publishing the results of a poll of academics on freedom of speech and academic freedom. This poll was conducted in 2024, with publication paused after the government announced its intention to review implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.

The polling found that:

• One in five academics on both the political left and right do not feel free (‘not very free’ or ‘not at all free’) to teach controversial topics, rising to one in three afraid to discuss them more generally, e.g. in external speaking engagements.
• Sex and gender is the top topic academics feel restricted discussing, and there is considerable variation depending on context. Perceived restrictions on discussing sex and gender are consistent across the political spectrum.
• A quarter (24%) of those who do not feel free in their teaching cite fear of physical attack.

Commenting on the polling, Arif Ahmed said:

‘The results of this poll are deeply disturbing, and show that a sizeable minority of academics from across the political spectrum do not feel free to teach, research or discuss controversial topics. Five per cent are reluctant to teach such topics because they are concerned about physical attack. This cannot stand, and should concern vice-chancellors up and down the country. Universities should now take steps to ensure that they are robust and unwavering in their support for academic freedom.’

Notes

• Examples in the guidance include:
  1. Harassment through social media: Students at provider A participate in a seminar discussion concerning governing divided societies. During the discussion, student B lawfully expresses a controversial position relating to minority groups. Following the seminar, student C publishes repeated comments on social media attacking student B, tagging them in the posts and encouraging other people to post responses to student B to tell them what they think of their views. Student C’s speech is so extreme, oppressive and distressing that their course of conduct may amount to harassment as defined in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Provider A learns of the activity. It carries out an investigation of student C under its social media policy, which forbids unlawful online harassment. In doing so, it is unlikely that provider A has breached its ‘secure’ duty.
  2. Professor criticising employment practice: College A imposes contractual obligations on its staff, including a social media policy requiring them not to post material that is ‘unnecessarily critical’ of the college. During an industrial dispute Professor B, an academic employed at A, strongly but lawfully criticises the college’s employment practices in a public post on social media. The college investigates Professor B and issues him with a formal warning. College A’s policy, and its action under this policy, are likely to breach its ‘secure duty’. College A should have considered taking reasonably practicable negative steps in this situation. These include not investigating Professor B, and not issuing him with a warning. They also include not imposing this restriction on the speech rights of its academic staff. By contrast, a social media policy that simply required staff to be clear that all views posted are their own and do not represent the college’s views, would have been unlikely by itself to have breached A’s ‘secure’ duty.
  3. International students on visiting scholarships: University A accepts international students every year through a programme of visiting scholarships funded by the government of country B. One condition of the scholarships is that recipients must accept the basic principles of the ruling party of country B. Another condition is that recipients must accept direction from country B’s government via its diplomatic staff. Arrangements like these are very likely to undermine free speech and academic freedom at university A. For instance, because of the first condition the university may be in effect setting a political test for entry to scholars. Because of the second condition scholars may be directed, by diplomatic staff of B, to suppress or monitor speech at the English provider where they hold those scholarships, through surveillance or physical intimidation or coercion of staff or other students at that provider. Amendment or termination of these arrangements is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that University A should now take to comply with its ‘secure’ duty. In this situation, it is also likely to be a reasonably practicable step for providers to have in place, and publicise, robust internal disciplinary processes for addressing harassment and surveillance of this type. Additional reasonably practicable steps are also likely to include due diligence such as accessing and translating official B-language documentation relating to these scholarships, for instance the contracts signed by students taking up these scholarships. This is likely to be especially important when there is a reasonable suspicion that conditions of funding, such as accepting the basic principles of the ruling party, are not overt.
• All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 1234 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 15 March–19 April 2024. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of Higher Education teaching staff in England, by age, gender, region, and contract type.