Latest news with #ArifAhmed
Times
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Times
Times letters: Free speech and students seeing both sides
Write to letters@ Sir, You report (Jun 19) Arif Ahmed, the head of free speech at the Office for Students, as saying that students should 'write essays defending viewpoints they find offensive'. I am sure most students would find this a pointless and unpleasant requirement. It would be much more natural to require them to write about a controversial issue in dialogue form, coming to a reasoned judgment as to the merits of the arguments on both sides. Ever since Plato, this has been a common device among western philosophers. Besides, the present fixation with writing essays has the dangerous side-effect of encouraging confirmation bias. This is the intellectual fault of ignoring factors that count against the position that the writer is arguing for, and which underlies a lot of bad scientific reasoning. Still worse is when examiners have a model essay in mind and mark students down for the extent to which they deviate from it. This is indoctrination rather than MacDonald RossLeeds Sir, Your report of Arif Ahmed's call for students to write essays defending viewpoints they oppose is a salient reminder that schools should develop the character strengths of empathy and open-mindedness in young people. Fortunately, such perspective-taking exercises are central to religious studies, philosophy and ethics courses, taught at GCSE and A-level, in which students must craft arguments both for and against social issues such as assisted dying, military intervention and genetic Kerr-ShawBerkhamsted, Herts Sir, There has been a huge increase in people's lack of tolerance towards the viewpoint of others over the past few years ('Academics 'fear being cancelled'', news, Jun 19). One way to tackle this would be for those in education to be exposed to views that are lawful — but which they might find offensive — and to discuss them. I therefore welcome the new guidance from the Office for Students. At the same time I find it remarkable that universities should have to be told to 'amend or terminate any agreement with foreign states or institutions that enabled censorship'. Universities are known to be under financial pressure but surely freedom of speech is one of the qualities that made our universities great in the first SmithWoking, Surrey Sir, The article on my piece in The Critic magazine ('Seldon 'put university on route to catastrophe'', Jun 19) focused on the University of Buckingham's experience. But I was using Buckingham only as an example. The time has come for all universities to remodel their governance on that used by Oxford, Cambridge, the Inns of Court and the medical royal colleges, and to be governed only by their academics. In the words of Michael Shattock, the doyen of university governance: 'Where improprieties and breakdowns have occurred, they have centred on governing bodies and the executive . . . not on the academic community.' Yet university improprieties and breakdowns are more common than is generally KealeyCambridge Sir, The European Space Agency's vision of orbital and lunar habitats is bold and commendable ('Life on Mars? Maybe . . . in 2040', Jun 19). But without enforceable governance and clear rights frameworks, technological ambition risks fuelling geopolitical rivalry and risky orbital militarisation. Space has become a geostrategic, economic and technological frontier, raising urgent questions about governance, equity, safety, security and sustainability in extreme environments. Who will ensure individual rights in space or prevent militarised or corporatised colonies? We must marry technical ambition in space with ethical foresight and multi-stakeholder interests. The ESA's vision, while laudable, must not become merely a technocratic road map. It should be underpinned by laws and norms and a vision for a planetary social contract: one that reconciles national and corporate interests with transcultural and transplanetary interests in a sustainable and peaceful Nayef Al-RodhanHead, Outer Space Security Cluster, Geneva Centre for Security Policy Sir, The assisted dying bill specifies that doctors must undertake 'detailed training' on domestic abuse, including coercive control. The government's impact assessment describes this as 'an advanced, two-day, in-person training package'. For six years I have worked for a domestic abuse charity supporting victim-survivors. We know that some perpetrators of coercive behaviours drive their victims to suicide, either because the victim cannot see a way out of the abuse or because the perpetrator deliberately tells them that they are worthless and should take their own lives. A one-off, two-day domestic abuse course will not provide participants with the skills to adequately detect domestic abuse and coercive control every time. It takes the experience and expertise of qualified domestic abuse practitioners to understand the dynamics and be able to pick them out. Without much stronger engagement with domestic abuse specialists this legislation would place victim-survivors at risk of being coerced into ending their own EllisChief executive, Rising Sun Domestic Violence & Abuse Service Sir, The attorney-general is right to question the legality of Britain participating in US-led military strikes on Iran ('Britain could support US to strike Iran from the air', Jun 19). International law prohibits the use of force, with only two generally accepted exceptions — neither of which apply here. First, there is no UN security council authorisation. This makes the situation even clearer than the 2003 Iraq intervention. Then, the government could argue that it was acting under an earlier resolution that had been 'revived' because of Iraq's misconduct. No such argument is available now. Second, the UK cannot rely on the claim of self-defence. Neither Britain nor Israel have been attacked. Rather, it was Israel's surprise attack that reignited hostilities after months of relative calm. While international lawyers debate whether a state may act against an imminent attack, publicly available information does not indicate that one was about to occur against Israel or any other state. Without credible evidence to the contrary — or further developments, such as Iranian strikes on UK assets — military action against Iran cannot be justified as self-defence. The prime minister should heed the legal advice and avoid dragging the UK into another military adventure without a clear legal MacakProfessor of international law, University of Exeter Sir, No one in the Chilterns will be surprised by the HS2 shambles ('HS2 an 'appalling mess' with no completion date', Jun 19). I was a member of the Chiltern Society sub-group charged with keeping a watching brief on the project. Various transport secretaries and MPs visited on fact-finding trips and in my view treated local protests with bored indifference. We were simply rich nimbys who didn't understand HS2's national significance. The only MP who treated the issue with any zeal was the late Cheryl Gillan, the MP for Chesham & Amersham, and she was dismissed as an overexcitable local politician. The problem with HS2 was that there was no real opposition to it in parliament. Conservatives and Labour both wanted it to happen and consequently no one in charge took alternative viewpoints seriously. If there had been an independent public inquiry before the project began — as in the case of Terminal 5 at Heathrow — strict conditions would have been laid down and the project would not have careened out of control like the proverbial runaway train. Such an inquiry would have delayed the start and possibly added costs — but not to the extent we are enduring with BrownPenn, Bucks Sir, In 1896 Henry Labouchere MP branded a proposed rail link between Kenya and Uganda the 'lunatic line'. The 660-mile line took five years to build and cost between £600 million and £800 million in today's money (as well as the lives of dozens of workers lost to the Tsavo man-eating lions). With HS2 now expected to cost more than £100 billion and take upwards of 20 years to complete, one wonders what Labouchere would have made of this new level of Pearce-HigginsLondon SW15 Sir, Libby Purves's article on the King's birthday honours (Jun 16; letter, Jun 17) brings to attention one of the problems with the honours system. Leaders of small charities and historical and community organisations may be honoured as representatives of the bodies they front but the award is intended for the whole entity, which is usually staffed by volunteers. Is there a case for instituting a new honour for such small-scale bodies? Perhaps an Order of National Service to be appended to the name of the organisation, modelled on the George Cross. It would not need hierarchies (KCBE, CBE, etc) and would recognise the corporate work of the organisation, rather than the temporary figurehead. I write as one whose MBE was obviously intended for the whole Church Monuments Society rather than me as an Jean Wilson MBEHarlton, Cambs Sir, Oxford Street is not one of the most unpleasant places in London because of vehicle traffic (news, Jun 17; letter, Jun 19). Its unpleasantness comes from phone thieves and a preponderance of dubious vape and candy stores. Neighbouring Soho is a far better candidate for pedestrianisation, containing no meaningful thoroughfares and having staged a successful period of pedestrianisation during the pandemic, which transformed dining out in the CaseyLondon W6 Sir, In disparaging the idea of a National Potato Week (notebook, Jun 19), Hilary Rose misunderstands the importance of the October holiday to Scottish schools. It allows pupils to help farms to harvest the potato crop. That young children today know where potatoes come from is doubtful, let alone what season the harvest falls in. I am harvesting my own potatoes (Arran pilot) in August but perhaps schools should encourage pupils to celebrate the potato by visiting a farm this JD MckelvieHelensburgh, Argyll and Bute Sir, As usual, Citroën was way ahead of the needs of modern drivers. As well as power steering and adaptive 'see round the corner' headlights, our 1974 Citroën DS has an air horn. A gentle nudge gives the 'vehicular cough' Sathnam Sanghera asks for (notebook, Jun 16; letters, Jun 17 & 18). A harder tug and it blares out something more akin to a wounded trombone. Effective and RappleOxford Sir, Living on the banks of the River Ribble we four rectory children were called to meals with a handbell over the railings (letter, Jun 19). The whole village knew our VarcoeSt Minver, Cornwall Write to letters@
Telegraph
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Universities told to drop social justice rules for staff
Universities have been told to scrap rules that push 'social justice' politics. New guidance has been issued by the Office for Students, a higher education regulator, to ensure free speech is protected on campus. The guidance instructs universities to scrap policies controversially used to enforce what critics have branded 'ideological conformity'. This is to ensure they do not breach the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which is set to come into law in August after being proposed under the Tories. Guidance states that to avoid falling foul of the Act, people should not be compelled to sign up to university codes of conduct that insist on promoting 'social justice' or other political values. The University of Newcastle code of conduct states that it will maintain a 'longstanding commitment… to social justice' and a belief that universities should 'play a fundamental role in creating and fostering societies that are more equitable'. Conduct commitments stifle free speech New guidance warns that commitments such as these could stifle free speech as dissenting from what is defined as 'social justice' could be prohibited. The Office for Students guide, overseen by free speech advocate Arif Ahmed, also advises scrapping other ways of compelling conformity that have proven controversial in the past. It states that academics should not be required to prove their 'commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion'. Many job applications in academia contain an inclusion statement, which incites applicants to state how they could support diversity and inclusion on campus. Earlier this year, the campaign group Alumni for Free Speech claimed that universities including Oxford routinely demanded that job applicants support diversity measures. New guidance states that academics being urged to profess a commitment to certain 'values, beliefs or ideas', in order to secure a job, could stifle any expression of dissent from these ideas. Discourage reporting microaggressions Universities have also been told to stop allowing students to anonymously report staff for expressing lawful views, and the reporting of 'microaggressions' has been discouraged. Microaggressions are perceived slights, often related to race, that are claimed to be a form of subtle discrimination. In 2022, the Telegraph revealed that the drama school Lamda had set up an anonymous system students could use to accuse their teachers. New guidance states that a system for reporting perceived offence 'could discourage open and lawful discussion of controversial topics'. Stop guest speakers being barred The Office for Students' advice for keeping within future free speech added that invited guest speakers should not be barred from campuses 'on the grounds of their ideas or opinions'. The act of de-platforming – refusing to allow speakers a platform to be heard – has previously been used by activists to stifle free speech. In 2023, efforts were made to stop a gender critical academic Prof Kathleen Stock from speaking at the Oxford Union. Mr Ahmed said of the guidance, and the coming legal changes: '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. 'It's essential that universities keep in mind that there is a very high bar for restricting lawful speech.' The moves to address specific mechanisms used to stifle dissenting views have been welcomed by some as 'one of the most progressive pieces of guidance ever'. 'End to highly politicised appointment processes' Ian Pace, professor of music, culture and society at the University of London and Secretary of the London Universities' Council for Academic Freedom, said: 'This will bring about a sea-change in academia if followed. 'An end to highly politicised appointment processes and promotions, by which political adherence supersedes scholarly considerations, and which have contributed to the current malaise. 'Compulsory EDI statements for promotion, commitments to uphold 'social justice', prohibitions of 'misgendering' are all out. He added: 'This is one of the most progressive pieces of guidance of its type ever.' He also welcomed measures to stamp out the interference of foreign governments in universities, with guidance stating that scholarship programs paid for by states such as China which demand conformity from students, should be banned. Should apply to student unions While the guidance makes clear what will be expected of universities in order to adhere to the law, there are concerns that some censorship will be un-policed. Politics professor Eric Kaufman, who resigned from Birkbeck over political 'hostility' from those on campus, has said that there is limited power 'to compel reluctant universities and administrators to give up their cherished political projects'. Lord Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, said: 'The OfS's new guidance is reassuringly robust, but it's a great shame that the new free speech duties won't apply to student unions. 'We know from the Free Speech Union's case files that student unions are among the worst offenders when it comes to silencing dissenting voices on campus.'
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
UK regulator tells Universities: Defend free speech, even if it's uncomfortable
British universities are facing a reckoning over the boundaries of speech and academic freedom. In newly issued guidance, the Office for Students, the UK's higher education regulator, has warned institutions that shielding students from legal but controversial ideas poses a threat to core academic principles. The message is unambiguous: Students must not only be allowed to speak freely, but also be prepared to confront opinions that may challenge, disturb, or even offend them. 'This includes things that they may find uncomfortable or shocking,' said Arif Ahmed, director for freedom of speech at the Office for Students. 'By being exposed to a diversity of academic thought, students will develop their analytical and critical thinking skills. ' A nation at a crossroads The guidance, released Thursday, arrives at a time when concerns are mounting that the UK's higher education system has leaned too far into ideological gatekeeping. Multiple groups, including gender-critical academics and pro-Israel organizations, have accused universities of suppressing lawful expression in deference to student protest. The backlash has grown particularly intense in recent years. In 2021, Professor Kathleen Stock resigned from the University of Sussex following an aggressive campaign by student activists who condemned her views on biological sex. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like We cannot lose another baby to the same disease, help us! Donate For Health Donate Now Undo Stock, who argued that sex is binary and immutable, faced calls for dismissal from groups identifying as queer, trans, and nonbinary. In a rare move earlier this year, the Office for Students fined the university £585,000 for failing to protect freedom of speech. Legislation meets the lecture hall The new guidance aims to operationalize the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, passed under the previous government, to reinforce legal protections for speech on UK campuses. The Office for Students emphasized that while universities must uphold lawful expression, they are not required to tolerate unlawful speech, including content that violates public order, equality, or counter-terrorism laws. In practical terms, universities retain the right to control when, where, and how speech takes place, so long as they do not suppress its substance. This clause aims to balance expression with academic function, ensuring that debates don't disrupt teaching or research. No easy balance Still, the path forward is anything but straightforward. Legal experts caution that the implementation of these rights will remain fraught with complexity. Julian Sladdin, a partner at law firm Pinsent Masons, told The Guardian that challenges will persist. '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 polarizing issues on campus and where the bounds of what may be lawful free speech are constantly being tested,' he was quoted as saying. This regulatory shift may be a necessary correction, but it is unlikely to end the battle between academic liberty and the emotional sensitivities of modern campus life. Beyond tolerance What emerges from this moment is a broader philosophical demand: that universities return to their core mission of cultivating rigorous, uncomfortable inquiry. In a climate where speech can be mistaken for violence and dissent for harm, the regulator's message is firm: Intellectual growth is not always safe, and it was never meant to be. British campuses are now tasked with navigating that reality, not retreating from it. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
English university students must face ‘shocking' ideas in a drive to protect free speech on campus
LONDON — Students at English universities must prepare to confront ideas they find uncomfortable and shocking, the national regulator for higher education said as it released new guidelines governing free speech on campuses across the country. The Office for Students said Thursday that freedom of speech and academic freedom are crucial to higher education, so the guidelines are designed to ensure that universities don't stifle any form of legal speech on their campuses or in their classrooms. Students must be allowed to freely share their opinions and be prepared to hear a range of views during their studies, Arif Ahmed, free speech director for the regulator, said in a statement. 'This includes things that they may find uncomfortable or shocking,' he said. 'By being exposed to a diversity of academic thought, students will develop their analytical and critical thinking skills.' The guidance comes as concern grows that British universities had gone too far in silencing professors and students who expressed ideas some people found offensive. In particular, gender-critical academics and pro-Israeli groups say they have been targeted by university officials and students who disagree with their ideas. In 2021, professor Kathleen Stock resigned from her position at the University of Sussex after a group of students who identified as queer, trans and nonbinary demanded that she be fired for expressing the belief that there are two immutable sexes, male and female. Earlier this year, the Office for Students fined the university 585,000 pounds ($785,000) for failing to uphold freedom of speech. The guidance released on Thursday is designed to implement legislation protecting freedom of speech on university campuses that was passed by the previous government in 2023. The regulator stressed that unlawful speech, including speech that violates anti-terror, equality or public order laws, is not protected by the legislation. Universities also have the right to regulate time, place and manner of lawful speech so that that it doesn't interfere with research, teaching and learning. While the guidance is a good first step, universities will still have a difficult time balancing all the interests on their campuses, Julian Sladdin, a partner at the law firm Pinsent Masons, told the Guardian newspaper. '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 polarizing issues on campus and where the bounds of what may be lawful free speech are constantly being tested,' he was quoted as saying. Kirka writes for the Associated Press.
Toronto Sun
a day ago
- Politics
- Toronto Sun
English university students must face 'shocking' ideas in drive to protect free speech on campus
New guidelines are designed to ensure universities don't stifle any form of legal speech on their campuses Published Jun 19, 2025 • 2 minute read Pro-Palestinians camp outside the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, England, Thursday, May 9, 2024. Photo by Kin Cheung / AP LONDON — Students at English universities must prepare to confront ideas they find uncomfortable and shocking, the national regulator for higher education said as it released new guidelines governing free speech on campuses across the country. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account The Office for Students said Thursday that freedom of speech and academic freedom are crucial to higher education, so the guidelines are designed to ensure that universities don't stifle any form of legal speech on their campuses or in their classrooms. Students must be allowed to freely share their opinions and be prepared to hear a range of views during their studies, Arif Ahmed, free speech director for the regulator, said in a statement. 'This includes things that they may find uncomfortable or shocking,' he said. 'By being exposed to a diversity of academic thought, students will develop their analytical and critical thinking skills.' The guidance comes as concern grows that British universities had gone too far in silencing professors and students who expressed ideas some people found offensive. In particular, gender-critical academics and pro-Israeli groups say they have been targeted by university officials and students who disagree with their ideas. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. In 2021, professor Kathleen Stock resigned from her position at the University of Sussex after a group of students who identified as queer, trans and nonbinary demanded that she be fired for expressing the belief that there are two immutable sexes, male and female. Earlier this year, the Office for Students fined the university 585,000 pounds ($785,000) for failing to uphold freedom of speech. The guidance released on Thursday is designed to implement legislation protecting freedom of speech on university campuses that was passed by the previous government in 2023. The regulator stressed that unlawful speech, including speech that violates anti-terror, equality or public order laws, is not protected by the legislation. Universities also have the right to regulate time, place and manner of lawful speech so that that it doesn't interfere with research, teaching and learning. While the guidance is a good first step, universities will still have a difficult time balancing all the interests on their campuses, Julian Sladdin, a partner at the law firm Pinsent Masons, told the Guardian newspaper. '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 polarizing issues on campus and where the bounds of what may be lawful free speech are constantly being tested,' he was quoted as saying. NHL Soccer Columnists Canada Sunshine Girls
