English universities barred from enforcing blanket bans on student protests

Universities in England will no longer be able to enforce blanket bans on student protests under sweeping new guidance that urges a 'very strong' approach to permitting lawful speech on campus.
The detailed regulations set out for the first time how universities should deal with inflammatory disputes, such as those between the University of Cambridge and students over the war in Gaza, and rows over academics who hold controversial but legal opinions, such as the gender-critical professor Kathleen Stock.
The guidance issued by the Office for Students (OfS) will make it harder for universities to penalise students and staff for anything other than unlawful speech or harassment.
But experts said the guidance failed to address the complexity of balancing free speech with activities that have 'chilling effects' on students or staff.
Universities are advised not to apply prolonged bans on protest encampments involving the Israel-Gaza conflict – as used by the University of Cambridge earlier this year – but will also be required to block 'frequent, vociferous and intrusive' protests if they intimidate Jewish students.
The guidance also says:
Academics should not be pressed to support particular views.
Protests should not be restricted for supporting legal viewpoints.
Students or staff should not be 'encouraged to report others' for lawful speech.
Universities must 'secure freedom of speech' for visiting speakers.
The OfS said its guidelines would help universities 'navigate' their duties under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which is due to come into force in August.
Julian Sladdin, a partner at the law firm Pinsent Masons and a specialist in higher education regulation, said the guidance gave some 'much-needed clarity' for providers but left others unclear.
'The difficulty which remains in practical terms is the fact that institutions are still subject to dealing day-to-day with extremely complex and often polarising issues on campus and where the bounds of what may be lawful free speech are constantly being tested,' Sladdin said.
'These matters do not appear to be sufficiently addressed by the guidance at present.
'This still leaves institutions with the need to put in place their own procedures to assess these questions, and [assess] how any risks can be addressed by reasonable and practicable steps given the multifaceted and fact-sensitive nature of free speech issues and the considerable time pressure often involved in managing the same – particularly in a period where we have increasingly seen protest and occupations across UK higher education.'
Universities will also expect staff and students to legally use social media in a personal capacity, without regard to any impact on institutional reputation, while reprimanding staff members whose speech or activities interferes with their teaching.
Earlier this year the OfS imposed a £585,000 fine on the University of Sussex, saying it 'failed to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom' affecting Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor targeted by protests for her views on gender identification and transgender rights.
The OfS published a survey of academics in which 21% said they did not feel free to discuss 'challenging' ideas in their teaching, including 19% who identified as leftwing and 32% as rightwing.
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
Prof Bobby Duffy, the director of the Policy Institute at King's College London, said: 'The reality is it's really tough to have completely clear regulations and laws in this space, which means that the testing of thresholds will be key in particular cases.
'We need to recognise that this is not a neutral space but is linked to more general 'culture war' divisions in society as a whole – which means that people will be motivated to use regulatory and legal routes to make a point – the process itself can be used to divide.
'There's no way around that but we do need to be aware of it.'
Arif Ahmed, the OfS's director for freedom of speech, said: '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.'
The OfS guidance also suggests that universities refuse places to international students whose funding requires them to follow the policies of foreign governments, potentially threatening state-sponsored students from a number of Asian and Middle Eastern countries.
A spokesperson for Universities UK said: 'We strongly agree that universities must be places where free speech is protected and promoted.
'These guidelines cover complex issues, and we are pleased to see that the OfS has taken onboard some of the feedback from the previous version.
'We will continue to work constructively with the OfS and with government as these changes are introduced, and will make sure universities are appropriately supported to comply with them.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Sky News

29 minutes ago

• Sky News

Sir Keir Starmer tries to contain rebellion among Labour MPs over welfare reforms

Sir Keir Starmer had a series of one-on-one meetings with Labour MPs on Friday to try to contain a rebellion on the government's welfare reforms. Ahead of the assisted dying vote, the prime minister met privately with some of the dozens of MPs with concerns about the proposed cuts to sickness and disability benefits. The first vote on the legislation, which the chancellor says will save £5bn a year from the welfare bill, will be held in early July. The prime minister's involvement at this stage suggests a major effort is underway to quell a potential rebellion. Cabinet ministers say they do not expect mass resignations, but one junior minister told Sky News that opposition to the reforms was "pretty strong". One frontbencher, government whip Vicky Foxcroft, resigned her post yesterday, writing that she understood "the need to address the ever-increasing welfare bill" but did not believe the proposed cuts "should be part of the solution". Other junior ministers and whips have not, as yet, moved to follow her. But one government insider said: "It's difficult to tell if the mood will harden as we get closer. There's a lot of work going on." The package of reforms is aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work, but dozens of Labour rebels said last month that the proposals were "impossible to support". 1:34 Welfare secretary Liz Kendall is also meeting individually with MPs. She said earlier this week that the welfare system is "at a crossroads" and the bill was about "compassion, opportunity and dignity". Ministers are trying to convince MPs that a £1bn fund to support disabled people into work, and the scrapping of the Work Capability Assessment, a key demand of disability groups, make the cuts package worth voting for. They insist that 90% of current claimants of personal independence payment (PIP) will not lose the benefit. But disability groups say the cuts will have a "disastrous" effect on vulnerable people.

The Sun

43 minutes ago

• The Sun

Heads must roll over pro-Palestinian thugs break-in at RAF Brize Norton

Brize idiots HOW on earth did pro-Palestinian thugs manage to break into RAF Brize Norton to damage two military planes? Breaking through the perimeter fencing is one thing. 1 But why weren't they stopped in their tracks by armed guards before they got anywhere near military assets? Instead, the first hapless commanders heard of it was when Palestine Action gleefully posted their footage online. It's beyond belief that security could be so lax at a time when the base is on high alert over Iran and Russia. Results of a full investigation must be made public and, if necessary, heads should roll. Meanwhile, this wasn't a harmless stunt by a cosy protest group. Palestine Action is made up of dangerous fanatics bent on attacking our country from within on behalf of a foreign cause. Lord Walney, the Government's ex-adviser on political violence, recommended it be outlawed as an extremist political group more than a year ago. The militants have since gone on to terrorise workers at weapons factories and people outside Crown courts. We welcome Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to now proscribe the hate-filled group. The question is: Why did it take so long? Shock moment pro-Palestine protesters break into RAF Brize Norton & spray 2 military planes with paint before escaping Dead loss ASSISTED dying is a deeply emotive and complex issue. In brutal terms, it amounts to state-sanctioned killing. On that basis, it's deeply worrying that Kim Leadbeater's ill-considered private members' bill is now set to become law. It simply does not have enough safeguards, particularly for the vulnerable, poor and disabled. During yesterday's debate, the idea it might allow families to coerce elderly relatives into early deaths was brushed aside as though such a thing could never happen. Fears from hospice carers were also dismissed. The Government has been absent throughout the legislative process and nearly 150 MPs ducked the decision and abstained. Crime associated with illegal migration is of significant public interest and concern in the wake of the Casey report into grooming gangs.

Times

an hour ago

• Times

A dozen ministers could quit over Starmer's disability welfare cuts

As many as a dozen members of government are prepared to resign rather than support Sir Keir Starmer's controversial welfare reforms, it has been claimed, as backbench critics accused ministers of betraying Labour values. A senior government figure told The Times that about 12 of their colleagues had privately indicated they would find it impossible to support the measures that are due to be voted on a week on Wednesday. Another leading opponent said that as many as 80 Labour MPs were 'holding firm' in opposition to the plans and believed the government would ultimately have to pull the vote. • No concessions on benefits reform, Starmer tells rebels 'If this goes through this will be our version of tuition fees,' they said. 'The optics of taking away money from people who find it difficult to go to the toilet are terrible.' The government has a working majority of 165, meaning that 83 Labour MPs would have to rebel for Starmer to lose a vote. Whips are warning potential rebels that they will be blacklisted for any future government job for as long as Starmer is prime minister — even if they simply abstain. Anyone openly opposing the plans faces a threat of having the whip suspended entirely amid growing concern in No 10 that the vote could slip away from the government. But one government source suggested that contingency plans to pull the vote altogether were being prepared, in case Starmer's team concluded that they did not have the numbers. Any move to back down would have implications for the government's finances as the £5 billion of savings from the changes have already been 'banked' by Rachel Reeves in the government's spending plans. Those prepared to walk away from their jobs are understood to be a mixture of junior ministers and parliamentary private secretaries — the MPs who act as the eyes and ears of cabinet ministers in Westminster. A few are said to be new MPs only elected last year. On Thursday Vicky Foxcroft, the MP for Lewisham North, resigned as a government whip and said she could not vote for the reforms. 'I have wrestled with whether I should resign or remain in the government and fight for change from within,' she told Starmer. 'Sadly it now seems that we are not going to get the changes I desperately wanted to see.' • Three months' grace for claimants about to lose disability benefits MPs are due to debate changes to welfare on July 1, which include a tightening of the criteria for the personal independence payment (PIP), the main disability payment in England and Wales. Ministers also want to cut the sickness-related element of universal credit, and delay access to it, so only those aged 22 and over can claim. The package of reforms is aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work, but dozens of Labour rebels said last month that the proposals were 'impossible to support'. A number of MPs spoke out in support of Foxcroft after her resignation. Jonathan Brash, the MP for Hartlepool, said he had 'utmost respect for her and her principled stand here', adding: 'She's right. Our welfare system does need change, but the cuts proposed are not the right way to do it.' Connor Naismith, the MP for Crewe & Nantwich, added: 'This must have been an incredibly difficult decision but she should be commended for standing by her principles. I agree with her that reducing the welfare bill is the right ambition, but cuts to universal credit and PIP should not be part of the solution.' Asked about the resignation on Times Radio, Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary said that it was 'up to every MP to look to their conscience and vote the way that they believe is right'. 'If you can't stick with collective responsibility in government, you have to resign,' she said. 'She's done the honourable thing. It will enable her to have a voice.'