Fifth of academics do not feel free to teach controversial topics, survey shows
One in five academics on both sides of the political spectrum do not feel free to teach controversial topics, a survey has found as England's higher education watchdog issued guidance on how institutions can protect freedom of speech.
The Office for Students (OfS) gave examples of how universities and colleges should respond to scenarios surrounding freedom of speech in its guidance published on Thursday, including around protests, investigating staff and student complaints and ensuring speakers are not stopped from expressing their ideas or opinions.
It comes as the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, passed under the previous Conservative government in 2023, imposes a duty on institutions to secure and promote freedom of speech so long as it is lawful – a duty which comes into force in August.
In its guidance, the OfS said: 'Higher education providers and constituent institutions should have a high tolerance for all kinds of lawful speech.
'There should be a very strong presumption in favour of permitting lawful speech.'
The guidance stated:
– Academic staff should not be constrained or pressured in their teaching to endorse or reject particular value judgements.– Policies that regulate protests and demonstrations should not restrict these activities because they express or support a particular viewpoint so long as it is legal.– Institutions should not encourage students or staff to report others over lawful expression of a particular point of view.– The starting point of investigating any complaint relating to speech should be that lawful speech will not be punished because of a viewpoint that it expresses.– Providers must take steps to secure freedom of speech for visiting speakers. A speaker who has been invited to speak should not be stopped from doing so on the grounds of their ideas or opinions.
The OfS made clear that it 'will not protect Holocaust denial'.
The guidance was published alongside a survey, conducted on behalf of the watchdog by YouGov, which revealed a fifth of academics (21%) feel 'not very free' or 'not at all free' to discuss challenging or controversial topics in their teaching, with almost a quarter (24%) of those citing fear of physical attack.
The percentage of those who do not feel free to teach controversial topics rises to a third for academics from ethnic minority backgrounds while female academics are more likely than their male counterparts to say they do not feel free discussing such topics in their teaching, research, speaking engagements or on social media.
The survey, undertaken by 1,234 respondents between March 15 and April 19 last year, also showed that the most common topic academics feel restricted in discussing is sex and gender, followed by race and racism.
Twenty-eight per cent of participants said their university has become less tolerant of a range of viewpoints during their tenure.
Just under half (46%) think their university would prioritise freedom of speech over not causing offence, while two-thirds (67%) believe their university would prioritise staff and/or students feeling safe over freedom of speech.
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.'
OfS chairman Professor Edward Peck, told MPs earlier this year that the watchdog's role in defending freedom of speech on campuses is 'absolutely crucial'.
' Universities, colleges and other providers should be places where ideas can be explored, examined, challenged, or disagreement can be facilitated. Where new viewpoints can be discovered,' he said.
'It's crucial – without that I don't think we'd have a university sector which would be the envy of the world as it is now. So that's my starting point.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
24 minutes ago
- Reuters
Zelenskiy says Ukraine developing interceptor drones to counter Russian attacks
June 20 (Reuters) - President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Friday that Ukraine was working on the rapid development of interceptor drones to counter the swarms of Russian drones that have been descending on Ukrainian cities in increasing numbers in recent weeks. Ukrainian officials have noted the sharply increased numbers of Iranian-designed Shahed drones deployed by Russian drones in the course of a single night and say it is vital to develop technology capable of tackling the threat they pose. "We are also working separately on interceptor drones, which are intended to enhance protection against Shahed drones," Zelenskiy said in his nightly video address. "Several of our domestic enterprises -- and, accordingly, different types of drones -- are delivering results. Production volumes of interceptors are already increasing." Russian forces have been deploying more than 400 drones on a single night, with more than 470 fired on more than one occasion. A total of 440 drones -- plus 32 missiles -- were deployed this week in a "combined" attack on Kyiv that flattened part of an apartment building and killed 28 people. "Drone air defence will help us use our means in a rational fashion. We cannot constantly use scarce air and anti-aircraft guided missiles and aviation itself to hunt enemy drones," Air Force spokesperson Yuri Ihnat told Ukrainian media this week. "The enemy is deploying more and more Shaheds and we are therefore looking for different methods to counter them." Zelenskiy and other officials have pointed to domestic drone production as a key element in national defence, and production has increased dramatically from being virtually non-existent before the Russian invasion of February 2022. The president told foreign arms manufacturers last November that Ukraine could produce 4 million drones annually and was quickly ramping up its production of other weapons. Ukraine has also been deploying drones against a variety of targets in Russia, mainly industrial and military. In a major operation earlier last month, Ukrainian drones attacked strategic bomber aircraft at different Russian airfields.
Daily Mail
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Reckless cyclists who kill pedestrians could be jailed for life as government set to crackdown on 'nightmare' E-bikes
Reckless cyclists who kill or seriously injure pedestrians will face tougher sentences in line with motoring offences. Under changes to the Crime and Policing Bill, a cyclist who kills someone by riding dangerously could face life in prison. Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling – or causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling – could be met with five years in prison, a fine or both. A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling could result in a two-year prison sentence, a fine or both. The law change, which cleared the Commons this week, includes legal e-bikes as well as pedal cycles, the Government said. The Tories agreed to change the law after campaigning by Conservative grandee Iain Duncan Smith – only for it to fall foul of the early general election last year. Sir Iain has worked with Matthew Briggs, whose wife Kim died from head injuries after a collision with a cyclist in London in 2016. Charlie Alliston, who was riding a fixed-gear bike with no front brake, was found guilty of causing bodily harm by 'wanton or furious driving' – a crime under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act – but cleared of manslaughter. Sir Iain said the change in the law would mean that for the first time there would be specific punishments for 'reckless, dangerous cycling causing injury or death'. The Bill includes e-bikes, which he said were becoming a 'major nightmare' for police, with crimes being committed using them as well as being ridden dangerously. Sir Iain said he hoped the legislation would make it 'worthwhile' for police to arrest someone for such offences. 'Now you have very specific criminal offences at those who misuse and damage people's lives and kill them,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. 'That will now be a specific crime, and will include e-bikes – riding on pavements, smashing into people, causing problems – that becomes a criminal offence.' The Government said it was changing the law to ensure there is an 'appropriate framework of offences to punish dangerous and careless behaviour that results in serious harm to other road users'. The Ministry of Justice said the new offences 'introduce penalties equivalent to those in place if the same level of harm is caused by drivers of other vehicles'. In 2023, four pedestrians were killed and 185 seriously injured after being hit by a cyclist, according to government figures. On average, three pedestrians have been killed per year by cyclists over the past decade.
Daily Mail
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Is the controversial suicide capsule coming to Britain? Australian right-to-die campaigner known as 'Dr Death' aims to bring euthanasia pod to the UK
A controversial suicide capsule could be coming to the UK after the assisted dying Bill passed its final Commons vote yesterday. Dr Philip Nitschke, the Australian right-to-die campaigner known as 'Dr Death' who is behind the Sarco euthanasia pod, said he will be 'enthusiastically' seeking to bring the technology to Britain for the first time. The coffin-like device offers patients a way to end their lives painlessly by flooding a sealed chamber with nitrogen gas that leads to loss of consciousness and death within ten minutes. A camera records their final moments and the video is sent to a coroner. Dr Nitschke said he intends to start 'enthusiastically pursuing the option of using the device in the UK' as soon as the assisted dying Bill becomes law. The campaigner said he has already had inquiries from 15 Britons seeking to use the Sarco pod and expects this number to increase with the passing of the Bill. 'We'll be looking to find UK-registered doctors to assist and of course someone who wants to use it and satisfies all of the requirements under the law,' he told The Times. 'The doctors involved would know that this would attract attention and possible close scrutiny, which by and large most doctors aren't enthusiastic about, so we'd have to find someone a little crusading.' If it becomes law, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will let terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live apply for an assisted death. The person wishing to die would take an approved substance, provided by a doctor but administered only by the person themselves. So far the Bill does not detail what the medication should be. Last year police made arrests after the Sarco pod was used for the first time by a 64-year-old American woman in Switzerland. Swiss authorities confiscated the capsule and took one of the pod company's founders, Florian Willet, who was present at the death, into custody on suspicion of aiding and abetting suicide. He was detained for ten weeks after police claimed there were strangulation marks on the neck of woman who had died. It comes after MPs on both sides of the assisted dying debate made impassioned interventions ahead of the Commons vote yesterday. Former home secretary Sir James Cleverly opened the debate for opponents of the Bill, speaking movingly of losing his closest friend to cancer this year as he warned that he could have 'lost' these precious final moments had assisted dying been available. Meanwhile Mother of the House Diane Abbott described it as the 'most fateful Bill that we discuss this Parliament'. The Labour MP warned that, under the Bill in its current form, 'there will be people among the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society who lose their lives unnecessarily'. 'It is literally a matter of life and death,' she added. 'I have heard talk today of the injustices of the current situation. What could be more unjust than someone losing their life because of poorly drafted legislation?' Former security minister Tom Tugendhat warned that legalising assisted dying would represent 'a huge shift in the relationship between the individual and the State'. The Tory MP said: 'It's about the power over life and death. Not just over ourselves, because we already have the power to end our own lives, it's called suicide. It is not a crime – it hasn't been a crime in this country for decades. 'This is a different power. This is about the power of the State through its agents to exercise power over life and death. 'Yes, agreed; yes, approved of in advance; but when the State takes a life, even with consent, that is a huge shift in the relationship between the individual and the State.' But one of the Bill's leading backers, Tory MP Kit Malthouse, wanted to give a voice to dying people 'not because they want to be rescued, but because time and time again, they're begging us for mercy'. The former Cabinet minister added: 'We honour life by giving it meaning and power. And the one thing that dying people ask for in their agonising final moments is control over the disease that is destroying them.' Campaigners from both sides had spent the day in rival but respectful demonstrations outside the Houses of Parliament. A cheer erupted as the result was announced on a livestream. Many cried and hugged each other, while others popped champagne. Rebecca Wilcox, Dame Esther Rantzen's daughter, called her mother, who is terminally ill, in front of supporters and told her she wished she was there. Ms Wilcox said that she even gave Bill proponent Kim Leadbeater's mother a 'big hug' following the result announcement and added: 'I don't know whether to have a drink or a really big cry. It was quite extraordinary.' Meanwhile Labour MP Dr Peter Prinsley said: 'As a young doctor, I found the measures that we're debating today completely unconscionable, but now I'm an old doctor, I feel sure this is an essential change.' He added: 'There is an absolute sanctity of human life, but we are not dealing with life or death, rather death or death. For there is also a sanctity of human dignity and fundamental to that is surely choice. Who are we to deny that?'
