Controversy Over Free Speech Legislation in UK Universities
Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson
The UK government has recently come under fire from prominent academics for suspending the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. This legislation was designed to safeguard free speech in universities, but its suspension has sparked a heated debate over concerns about cancel culture, academic freedom, and the potential harm caused by unrestricted speech. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson announced the suspension, citing the act’s inadequacies and potential risks to students, which has led to a backlash from academics advocating for robust protections of free speech in academic settings.
Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, announced last month that the government would pause the introduction of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. Originally intended to enforce free speech on university campuses, the legislation would have required universities to uphold the principle of free expression, including for controversial or unpopular viewpoints. Phillipson justified the suspension by arguing that the act was "not fit for purpose" and that its enforcement could lead to exposure of students to harmful or hateful speech, compromising their safety and well-being.
A letter signed by over 500 academics, including well-known figures such as biologist Richard Dawkins, philosopher Kathleen Stock, and historian Niall Ferguson, urged the government to reconsider the decision. The letter warns that the suspension of the act could lead to further incidents where academics and students are “hounded, censured, and silenced” for expressing legitimate, legal views. Signatories of the letter highlighted concerns about the erosion of academic freedom, citing examples of scholars facing backlash for holding dissenting opinions on sensitive topics such as religion, gender, and politics.
The academics argue that the suppression of free speech on campuses has had tangible negative consequences. For instance, they referenced the Cass Review, which suggested that limitations on university research into puberty blockers contributed to a significant medical scandal. Furthermore, a recent report from the Academic Freedom Index ranked the UK 66th globally in terms of academic freedom, falling behind countries such as Peru and Burkina Faso, which the signatories find concerning.
Arguments Against the Act
Phillipson and other critics of the act expressed concerns that enforcing the legislation could burden universities financially and administratively, particularly given current financial strains. Additionally, there are fears that the act could enable the spread of hate speech by preventing universities from blocking speakers with controversial or extremist views, such as Holocaust denier David Irving or far-right activist Tommy Robinson. This, opponents argue, could lead to environments that are hostile to vulnerable student groups, including Jewish students, and potentially foster a climate of intolerance.
A government source reiterated that suspending the act was a measure to prevent the normalization of hate speech and antisemitism on campuses. The government maintains that existing laws already require universities to protect free speech while preventing harassment and incitement to hatred, thereby making the suspended act redundant.
In their response, the academics claimed that the financial burden of compliance with the act, estimated by the government's own analysis to be around £4.7 million, is manageable and could actually reduce legal costs by providing a quicker resolution mechanism for disputes. They further argued that concerns about hate speech and antisemitism are mitigated by existing English laws that prohibit harassment and incitement to hatred, ensuring that universities would not be compelled to tolerate genuinely harmful speech.
