Freedom of Speech in Higher Education: Where does Scotland stand?
While some of the recent legislative and regulatory action has taken place in England, Scottish universities are not immune to the wider cultural, legal and sectoral shifts; indeed, the well-publicised NHS Fife changing room dispute and For Women Scotland's recent supreme court appeal show that Scotland is on the front-line of varying disputes in this space and its universities are far from immune from that.
Scottish universities are proud of their history and commitment to freedom of speech, demonstrating a longstanding commitment to inclusivity and safe environments for expression of thought; however, seismic cultural shifts and legislative changes must make all Scottish universities pause for thought and consider whether their policies and procedures are fit for purpose in protecting the institution they treasure.
Case in point: the recent high-profile case involving the University of Sussex — culminating in a £585,000 fine imposed by England's higher education regulator, the Office for Students (OfS) – has raised urgent questions for institutions across the UK.
What obligations do universities have to protect academic freedom and free expression? Where should the line be drawn between inclusion and open debate? And what lessons, if any, should be applied in Scotland?
A Distinctive Scottish Framework
Scotland's higher education system operates under a distinct set of laws, governance structures and values. Scottish universities are accountable to the Scottish Funding Council, not the OfS, and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, passed at Westminster, does not apply here.
That said, Scottish universities are still subject to a range of legal duties that affect how they manage speech on campus:
Human Rights Act 1998 and ECHR rights: Protect freedom of thought, conscience, and expression (Articles 9 and 10), subject to limits necessary in a democratic society.
Equality Act 2010: A UK-wide statute that prohibits discrimination and harassment on grounds including religion or belief—including philosophical beliefs.
Post-16 Education (Scotland) Act 2013: Reaffirms institutional autonomy and recognises the principle of academic freedom in Scotland.
Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED): Requires public bodies to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations.
These frameworks reflect Scotland's commitment to both inclusive education and robust intellectual enquiry. But as the Sussex case shows, striking the right balance in practice can be complex.
The Sussex Decision: A Cautionary Tale?
The OfS investigation into the University of Sussex focused on a Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy introduced in 2018, and the extent to which it impacted staff and students' ability to express lawful but contested views, particularly those critical of prevailing gender orthodoxy. Four specific statements in the policy were found to have a 'chilling effect' on freedom of speech and academic freedom, leading to regulatory breaches.
While the regulatory regime in Scotland is different, the substance of the issues will feel familiar to many here. Advance HE, the organisation whose template informed Sussex's policy, also works closely with Scottish institutions; many Scottish universities have adopted or adapted similar policies, often in pursuit of charter marks or DEI goals.
It's therefore worth reflecting on what went wrong; this is not to mimic England's regulatory approach, but to safeguard the distinct values of Scottish higher education.
(Image: Can universities truly maintain open debate in the current cultural climate?)
Balancing Rights: The Scottish Way?
In Scotland, there has long been a commitment to pluralism, respect for difference, and academic rigour. But even here, universities are facing increasing challenges in holding space for disagreement, particularly on issues such as gender identity, race, climate justice and international conflicts.
Three principles emerge from the Sussex case that are relevant for Scottish institutions:
1. Freedom of speech and academic freedom must be given real and substantive protection. This means being cautious about policies or practices that could discourage staff or students from expressing legitimate, lawful views — even when those views are controversial or unpopular.
2. Legal boundaries matter. Universities cannot redefine what constitutes harassment or unlawful speech based on internal values or strategic priorities. Overreach – even in pursuit of inclusion – can carry legal risk and reputational damage.
3. Context, clarity and consultation are key. The Sussex policy was criticised not simply for its content but for how it was introduced. In Scotland, a transparent, inclusive process that encourages open dialogue may help pre-empt conflict.
What This Means for Policy and Practice
Scottish universities are not expected to walk away from their commitments to diversity, equality and inclusion. Nor should they. But they must ensure that DEI policies do not unintentionally undermine legally protected speech or create an environment where certain viewpoints are effectively excluded from academic life.
This doesn't mean giving a platform to hate or harm. There remains a legal and moral obligation to prevent harassment and ensure safe learning environments.
But lawful speech, no matter how uncomfortable, must be protected if academic freedom is to mean anything.
Institutions may also wish to revisit how they manage controversial events, speaker invitations, and internal debates.
While universities can impose proportionate time, place, and manner restrictions, any attempt to limit the content of lawful speech, directly or indirectly, should be approached with extreme caution.
A Time for Reflection
The OfS decision regarding Sussex is a product of the English regulatory context, but it offers a valuable opportunity for reflection here in Scotland.
Are our policies appropriately balanced? Do they protect dissent as well as dignity? Do they foster open enquiry alongside inclusivity?
These questions deserve serious attention—not because they are easy, but because they go to the heart of what a university is for.
Scottish higher education has long been proud of its distinctive identity, rooted in Enlightenment values and intellectual independence.
As debates around speech and academic freedom intensify, that identity may well become the sector's greatest asset, if we are brave enough to uphold it.
Melanie Steed is a Principal Associate in the employment, pensions and immigration team of Weightmans
www.weightmans.com
This article was brought to you in partnership with Weightmans
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Assisted dying bill passed by MPs - but what does this mean for Wales?
Plans to change the law to legalise assisted dying in Wales and England have come a step closer with an historic vote in the Commons, but there remain huge questions over how it will actually affect Wales. MPs voted to pass the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill by 314 to 291. Of Wales' 32 MPs - 24 backed the bill, seven voted against and one did not vote. Health is devolved, so the implementation of any assisted dying service would be carried out through the Welsh NHS which is controlled by the Welsh Government and ultimately answerable to the Senedd itself. In a vote last October on the principle of assisted dying, Senedd members including the First Minister and Health Secretary voted against it, which means there is every chance that MSs could vote to block it. That in turn raises the prospect of assisted dying being legalised here in Wales but Welsh doctors prohibited from providing the service. An earlier attempt to give the power to decide whether or not to allow the law to be changed here in Wales to the Senedd was overturned via an amendment to the Bill. One of the MPs behind that bid, Plaid Cymru's Liz Saville Roberts, said: 'It is regrettable that the House chose to remove the Senedd's power to commence this Bill in Wales. "Health is devolved, and I firmly believe that the Senedd must take responsibility for the services available to people at the end of their lives. I am concerned that we could face a situation where assisted dying is permitted only through the private sector in Wales. 'I am also disappointed that no Welsh MP was called to speak in today's debate. Scottish and Northern Irish MPs were given the opportunity to contribute, despite the Bill not extending to those jurisdictions. 'I am nevertheless pleased that this Bill has passed its third reading. We are a step closer to granting people dying of terminal illnesses dignity at the of their lives, and the safeguards have been strengthened to protect vulnerable people.' I understand that there will be a vote on the aspects of the bill that are devolved, particularly as it affects the health service which is the means by which any assisted dying service will be provided here in Wales. It will come in the form of a Legislative Consent Motion (LCM) whereby Senedd members agree or disagree to allow UK Parliament legislation to affect Senedd law. The Health Secretary, Jeremy Miles, has already tabled an LCM although it might have to be altered now that the bill has been altered. An updated LCM has to be laid by 4th July. The Welsh Government says: 'We remain neutral on the issue of assisted dying. 'We have been working constructively with the UK Government and the Bill sponsor to ensure devolved interests are taken into account and the devolution settlement is respected.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Scottish council to write to PM in call to end arm sales to Israel
SNP councillor Naz Anis-Miah's pro-Palestinian motion was passed by Fife Council despite opposition from the ruling minority Labour administration. Labour councillors dropped their amendment to the motion halfway through the debate, which Anis-Miah described as 'unheard of'. The full motion called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, an end to UK arms sales to Israel, a commitment to upholding international law, and support for increased humanitarian aid to the region. READ MORE: Scottish Labour drop below Alba and Greens in Highlands by-election It also committed the leader of Fife Council, Labour councillor David Ross, to write to Keir Starmer, Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds over ending arms exports and instead increasing humanitarian aid. 'Obviously [Benjamin] Netanyahu and Israel are not going to listen to what Fife Council are going to say, but what Fife Council can do is apply pressure to the British government,' Anis-Miah told The National. The debate on the motion was held on Thursday, with councillors going back and forth over Labour's amendment which Anis-Miah said would have 'watered down' the SNP's motion. Speaking in the chamber, Anis-Miah (below) told fellow councillors: 'We can't claim to champion human rights abroad while fueling destruction with our exports. 'We can't preach peace while we enable war. We cannot turn a blind eye to the death of innocent children while our industries build machines that kill them. If we can't stop the bombs let's stop building them. If we can't end the war let's refuse to fuel it. (Image: SNP) 'If we can't undo the suffering, let us not be the ones who prolong it. I urge every member of this chamber to support the motion. "Let's send a clear message to the Prime Minister and Westminster that the people of Fife and Scotland will not be complicit in supplying arms that cause genocide.' Ross told councillors that members of the Labour group were still 'uncomfortable' with some parts of the motion. 'I think undoubtedly we are all horrified and really totally concerned about what is going on and we recognise the need to make a statement,' he added. 'In the interests of speaking with one voice from the council we're prepared to withdraw our amendment with a slight concession on the wording from the SNP motion.' The SNP group agreed to remove a call for the motion to be shared with Cosla and other councils across Scotland. READ MORE: UK scrambles to charter flights out of Israel for British citizens 'We're comfortable that we can share it with our Cosla delegates at the SNP Council group nationwide, and we've also obviously got a network of Councilors across the country, so we're comfortable that we'll share the motion ourselves,' Anis-Miah explained. We previously told how in the last quarter of 2024, the Labour Government licensed exports of more military equipment to Israel than the Tories did for all of 2020-2023 combined. This led to Lammy claiming that The National's article was 'clickbait' as he dismissed the report, which was based on UK Government figures. Several high profile celebrities, including Paolo Nutini and Ncuti Gatwa, have joined calls urging Starmer to suspend arm sales to Israel.
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
North Ayrshire Tory claims 20mph limit is part of 'climate change madness'
He said the policy was all about pleasing the Scottish Government. Bold efforts by the North Ayrshire Tory Group to put the brakes on the Cabinet's support of the Scottish Government's National Strategy for 20mph in Urban areas and approve the implementation of 20mph speed limits stalled on Thursday. At a fiery meeting of the Audit and Scrutiny Committee, the Conservative Group asked Cabinet to: Suspend the implementation of the 20mph speed limit across all roads, pending the outcome of a full review of cost effectiveness, enforceability, and public consultation and to commission an impact assessment as well as taking feedback from a public consultation. Supporting the call-in, North Coast cllr Todd Ferguson said he had been contacted by local business and constituents concerned about the plans. He said: 'As Conservatives we fully support efforts on road safety but believe they must be targeted, evidence-based and proportionate and what is being suggested for the blanket 20mph limit simply does not meet that criteria. 'In North Ayrshire road fatalities remain consistently low although one death is one death too many. 'UK wide we see that when you change signs it limits reduction of speed by only one mile per hour and that changes to 10mph if you include traffic calming but that is not being proposed. 'We had success in Burnhouse and Gateside in getting changes to speed but it did not change behaviour - you had a driver going at 90mph in Burnhouse. We need enforcement but resources are already stretched." Tory Group Leader Cameron Inglis suggested the policy was "smoke and mirrors" and was all about pleasing the Scottish Government by persuading people to stop using their cars as "part of this climate change madness". Tony Gurney, Cabinet member for the Environment and Green Economy said: 'This is more than a transport policy - it's an investment in public safety. 'This is not a blanket, it has been consulted throughout North Ayrshire. Implementation is recommended only where we see a clear safety benefit. We will implement 20mph zones and that is an opportunity for enforcement by police. 'It is not about flowing traffic, it is about safety. According to the Department of Transport the chances of pedestrians being killed more than halves when speed is reduced to 20mph from 30mph. "A child hit by a car has a one in five chance of dying in 30mph in 20mph drops dramatically to one in 40. 'The British Medical Journal links 20mph to a 40 per cent reduction in road casualties. "Lives are saved, injuries prevented, NHS costs reduced. Lower speeds give drivers time to react. That extra second can be different between a close call and a tragedy." Independent cllr Donald L Reid said: "I was in office with the Police from 1967 to 1999 and this encompasses what it is all about, speed kills. "Anything we can do to reduce speed must be a priority. If we can keep speed down to 20mph that is sensible and with a bit of hard work we can probably achieve this. "We saw how drink driving became unacceptable, how wearing seatbelts became the norm and helmets for cyclists and motorcyclists helped save many lives, I don't see how we can't make our streets safer.' A motion to reject the call-in, allowing the policy to stand, defeated an amendment by the Tory Group to accept the call-in and send the matter back to the cabinet for further consideration by six votes to three.
