Fifth of academics do not feel free to teach controversial topics, survey shows
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
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Why the ‘individual conscience vote' of MPs had its own assisted death last week
Two votes in the Commons split by four days laid the ground for a seismic shift in British social policy making last week one of the most significant in the modern history of Parliament. But while the votes on abortion (Tuesday) and assisted dying (Friday) were officially matters of individual conscience the evidence from both suggests that the UK is now closer than ever to a US-style party politicisation of moral issues. If you vote Labour or Lib Dem you are much more likely to get a pro-choice MP, if you vote Conservative or Reform you are more likely to get a pro-life MP. This is not an accident, it is increasingly by design. How parties voted on life and death On Tuesday the decriminalisation of abortion up to birth amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill laid down by Labour Gower MP Tonia Antoniazzi won by 379 to 137. Of this 291 Labour MPs voted in favour and just 25 against while 63 Lib Dems were in favour and just two against. On the other side 92 Tory MPs voted against and just four in favour. Another four abstained by voting in both lobbies. No Reform MPs supported and four voted against. The split is not as stark on Friday's assisted dying vote but nevertheless reveals a trend. Kim Leadbeater 's bill had the support of 224 fellow Labour MPs with 160 against and 56 Lib Dems with 15 against. On the other side the Tories split 92 against to 20 in favour while Reform were three against and two in favour. Kemi Badenoch put a two line whip on the abortion vote rather than allowing a completely free vote. This indicated a party position without the threat of disciplinary action which would come with a three line whip. But, remarkably, after the abortion vote senior Tories were complaining that Ms Badenoch had not withdrawn the whip of the four MPs who voted for decriminalisation. It was different in 1967 The last time the UK saw Parliament vote on such seismic social change was back in 1967 with Liberal MP David Steel 's abortion legislation and Labour MP Leo Abse's Sexual Offences Act which decriminalised homosexuality. In both those cases parties split down the middle on conscience votes which saw the odd alliance of rightwing Tory MP Enoch Powell and leftwing Labour MP Tony Benn coming together to support legalising homosexuality. The Ed Miliband effect The erosion of the conscience vote in the UK has actually come more from a hardening of positions from progressive leftwing parties in Britain and exacerbated by the so-called culture wars. In 2012 Ed Miliband imposed a three-line whip on gay marriage on Labour MPs. LGBTQ+ matters ended there as something of individual conscience for the first time. Then in 2019 former MP Roger Godsiff was dropped as a Labour candidate for supporting parents in his Birmingham constituency who were protesting over primary school children being taught about same-sex relationships. This year we see Reform UK banning LGBTQ+ flags from county halls where they have taken control of the council and attempting to purge councils of diversity, equity and inclusion officers and policies. While abortion officially remained a matter of conscience a comment by the now home secretary Yvette Cooper in 2017 about Jacob Rees-Mogg being unfit to be a party leader because of his views on abortion was enlightening. What has happened over a number of years is that the majority of socially conservative, mostly Catholic tradition in Labour has been removed through selection processes. David Campanale versus the Lib Dems An ongoing legal case involving the Liberal Democrats and one of its former candidates has highlighted an apparent major shift in British politics to the party politicisation of conscience issues. Former BBC journalist David Campanale was kicked out as the candidate for Sutton ahead of the last election because, he claims, of his Christian beliefs. According to documents presented in the case, Luke Taylor, who replaced him as the candidate, is alleged to have claimed that 'the party of past prominent Liberal Democrats with Christian beliefs, such as Shirley Williams and Charles Kennedy, was 'over', and that he and others were building a 'secular party' which would have no place for Christians expecting to 'hold to their religious or conscientious opinions'. Mr Taylor was the teller for the votes in favour of the abortion amendment on Tuesday, who also described the assisted dying vote, which he supported, as a good way to 'neatly bookend the week.' If Mr Campanale wins his case it will for the first time provide evidence that selection is taking place on conscience issues as well as other matters. The Lib Dems have denied the claims and pointed out that their leader Sr Ed Davey goes to church. But the Christian Lib Dems including former deputy leader Simon Hughes have voiced concerns and the party has been condemned by two bishops. and a former Archbishop of Canterbury. Added to that Tim Farron, who voted against abortion and assisted dying last week, was ousted as leader over his Christian beliefs in 2017. During the assisted dying vote a number of supporters of the bill suggested that religious belief had no place in deciding such issues. A real departure from conscience. But a brand of conservatism is emerging in the UK which openly embraces traditional Christian values. Reflecting on the assisted dying vote, Tory MP Danny Kruger, a leading opponent of the bill, said: 'If we are to withstand our enemies, bring our society together, and tame the technium (somehow ensure that human values govern the new age of machines), we are going to need values that are up to the job. 'I don't think humanist atheism or progressive liberalism or whatever the new religion should be called, is up to it. Christianity is. Only Christianity is.' A warning from America In America, the conscience vote rapidly became more party-politicised as a result of the Roe vs Wade abortion ruling in in 1973. Social conservatives gradually began to take over the Republicans on the right and social progressives the Democrats. It has played out ferociously in the selection of Supreme Court justices, who recently in effect overturned Roe v Wade with a conservative majority. The most interesting US development is the way that a man like Donald Trump, previously ambiguous over abortion, has adopted a strong anti-abortion line to please his base. This played out in the 2022 midterms to the detriment of the Republicans with the Democrats using the threat to abortion rights to great effect. But it did little to help Kamala Harris in 2024. What that shows though is that parties with very strong views one way or the other can be elected largely on economic grounds but bring with them a great deal of baggage on conscience issues. After this week some would argue the same thing has happened in the opposite direction in the UK.
The Herald Scotland
9 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Rantzen warns peers not to hamper progress of assisted dying law
The legislation could face a difficult passage through the Lords, with critics poised to table amendments to add further restrictions and safeguards to the Bill. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz of to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lord's and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.' Conservative peer and disability rights campaigner Lord Shinkwin said the narrow Commons majority underlined the need for peers to take a close look at the legislation. He told Today 'I think the House of Lords has a duty to expose and to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny' but 'I don't think it's a question of blocking it so much as performing our duty as a revising chamber'. He added: 'The margin yesterday was so close that many MPs would appreciate the opportunity to look at this again in respect of safeguards as they relate to those who feel vulnerable, whether that's disabled people or older people.' Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who steered the Bill through the Commons, told the PA news agency she hoped peers would not seek to derail the legislation, which could run out of parliamentary time if it is held up in the Lords. She said: 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.' A group of 27 Labour MPs who voted against the legislation said: 'We were elected to represent both of those groups and are still deeply concerned about the risks in this Bill of coercion of the old and discrimination against the disabled, people with anorexia and black, Asian and minority ethnic people, who we know do not receive equitable health care. 'As the Bill moves to the House of Lords it must receive the scrutiny that it needs. Not about the principles of assisted dying but its application in this deeply flawed Bill.' Meanwhile, one of the leading opponents of the Bill, Conservative Danny Kruger, said 'these are apocalyptic times'. In a series of tweets on Friday night, the East Wiltshire MP – who is at odds with his mother, Great British Bake Off judge Dame Prue Leith in her support for legalisation – accused assisted dying campaigners of being 'militant anti-Christians' who had failed to 'engage with the detail of the Bill'.
Daily Mail
11 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Cringeworthy moment Labor brags about building 17 new homes in seven months in a far cry from 1.2million goal
Labor has been slammed for bragging about building 17 new homes in Canberra in seven months - a far cry from its target of 1.2million homes in five years. 'We're here in Canberra visiting some brand spanking new homes, what do you reckon Chris?' Minister for Housing Clare O'Neil said in a TikTok on Friday. In an awkward game of catch, she tossed the phone to Chris Steel, ACT Minister for Planning and Sustainable Development, who then turned the camera on himself. 'Pretty good, 17 class C adaptable homes for new residents,' said a grinning Steel. He then threw the phone to Labor MP David Smith, who added: 'A great example of two Labor governments working together and taking pressure off housing right here in Bean'. 'And the good news is we're just getting started,' O'Neil said after Smith had tossed the phone back to her. 'This is 17 out of 55,000 social and affordable homes that our government is going to deliver to Australians over the coming few years.' The 55,000 social and affordable homes O'Neil mentioned fall under Labor's broader target of building 1.2million homes over five years from mid-2024. The policy known as the National Housing Accord includes $3.5billion in payments to state, territory and local governments to support the delivery of new homes towards the target, and a one-off $2billion payment to help states and territories to increase social housing stock. Aussies were quick to criticise the video, slamming the lacklustre seven-month timeframe for building just 17 houses. '17 homes in seven months... At that rate it will take you 1,886 years to complete the remaining 55,000 homes,' one said. 'You should reach your target by 2080 - what a joke,' said another. 'Do you realise another major building company has just declared bankruptcy?' a third asked. Critics have labelled Labor's housing target unrealistic, if not impossible, amid soaring construction costs and unfettered immigration. Australia had a record level of construction company insolvencies in 2025, a 24 per cent increase over last year's rate. Labor's policy requires 240,000 homes to be delivered every single year for five years - a significant improvement on Australia's record year of construction in 2017, when about 223,000 homes were built. Leith van Onselen, who formerly worked at the Australian Treasury and is the chief economist at MacroBusiness, said the construction sector was struggling. 'As a result, builders are caught between a rock and a hard place whereby they can't deliver stock at a profitable level, and that has created a major handbrake on housing construction,' Mr van Onselen said. 'We're still seeing lots of builders going under, and they're struggling to make a profit at the moment, which just means this housing construction target from the federal government is completely unrealistic. 'It's just too expensive to build housing in Australia at the moment, for a variety of reasons, and that just means that less housing is going to be built at the same time the government has the throttle on immigration.'
