Securing free speech

All staff and students are entitled to teach, learn and research in a culture that values vigorous debate and in which they can hold or discuss lawful views. 

Under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, universities and colleges (including constituent institutions, such as Oxford colleges) must take ‘reasonably practicable’ steps to secure freedom of speech within the law.

What this means in practice will depend on the circumstances. We set these circumstances out below.

Reasonably practicable steps can be positive (such as amending a policy or code of conduct) or negative (for example, not firing a member of staff).

This page illustrates what this may mean in a few key areas. These are:

• Admissions, appointments and promotion
• Complaints
• Governance
• Research
• Speaker events
• Teaching
• Training and induction

There may be other steps that providers and constituent institutions need to take. Please refer to our full guidance: Regulatory advice 24: Guidance related to freedom of speech.

Admissions, appointments and promotion

The viewpoint of a student at a university or college should not affect whether they are admitted to another course there. A binding offer to a student should not be varied or revoked because of their viewpoint. 

Providers should also not require anyone in an academic position to commit to a particular point of view.

If a provider offers a student or visiting academic a place based on funding, restricting what views they express should not be a condition for receiving the funding.

Students or staff should not be disciplined, expelled, fired or placed at risk of losing jobs, promotions or other privileges for expressing lawful ideas. 

Where a member of staff is dismissed, the process should record in sufficient detail all decisions. If concerns about academic freedom have arisen or might reasonably arise, this record should include evidence that the appointment process did not penalise a candidate for their exercise of academic freedom. This may include, for instance, written reasons for the decision.

In the same way, if a member of staff applies for academic promotion, the process should include a sufficiently detailed record of all decisions. If concerns about academic freedom have arisen or might reasonably arise, this record should include evidence that the process did not penalise a candidate for their exercise of academic freedom. This may include, for instance, written reasons for the decision.

Complaints

In order to avoid unnecessary intrusive investigations, it is likely to be reasonably practicable to include a preliminary assessment/triage to assess whether to commence an investigation into someone’s speech or the viewpoint that they have expressed. The starting point of any such process should be that lawful speech will not be punished because of a viewpoint that it expresses. 

This preliminary assessment should be quick, fair and objective, and should generally and promptly reject complaints that are simply about a lawful viewpoint.

Providers and constituent institutions should not encourage students or staff to report others over lawful expression of a particular viewpoint.

Every complaints process should promptly reject vexatious, frivolous or obviously unmeritorious complaints relating to speech. In order to avoid unnecessary intrusive investigations, it is likely to be reasonably practicable to include a preliminary assessment/triage to assess whether to commence an investigation. The starting point of any such process should be that lawful speech will not be punished because of a viewpoint that it expresses. 

Complaints processes should be concluded as rapidly as is reasonably practicable and compatible with fairness. 

Governance

The governing body should keep a record of all decisions that are likely to have a substantial effect on lawful free speech. These records should show how it has considered the importance of free speech and academic freedom.

External reviews – judicial review, regulatory investigation, relevant complaints processes – should be able to access these records. So, universities and colleges should keep them long enough for this purpose. 

Providers should clearly document where it delegates decisions to committees and individuals that could substantially affect its compliance with free speech duties. The terms of reference for these committees should also clearly require the committee to consider these duties.

Any decisions about the curriculum should give academics the freedom to teach and communicate lawful ideas that may be controversial, unpopular or offensive. They should also not restrict the exposure of students to ideas simply because those ideas may be unpopular, controversial or offensive to some.

Research

Staff and students should be free to conduct academic research within the law.

If research reaches a conclusion or viewpoint that conflicts with an organisation’s policies or values, this is not a reason to restrict the research. Funding that supports research should also not constrain the conclusions or viewpoint of researchers.

Research ethics committees should:

• focus on ethical issues not the quality of the research or its impact on the provider's reputation
• have particular regard to the importance of academic freedom
• follow a transparent process
• be closely monitored so that research is not suppressed unnecessarily.

Speaker events

Where someone has been invited to speak at an event or meeting, they should not be prevented from speaking because of their lawful ideas or viewpoints.

Generally this means that providers should not cancel events because of protests or objections (even if they are widespread) as long as they do not interfere with the essential functions of the university or college – teaching, learning, research and necessary administration.

In some cases, a provider may need to regulate the time, place or manner of a speaking event so that the essential functions of higher education continue, or if there is a concern about physical safety. Such regulation should not restrict the time, place or manner of speech any more than necessary.

Teaching

Universities and colleges should not pressure academic staff to teach or endorse particular values. They should also not treat students any more or less favourably than any other student because of their viewpoints or ideas.

Students’ ideas or viewpoints should not affect (among other things):

• whether or how a provider educates a student
• a student's access to benefits, facilities or services.

Training and induction

Providers should provide training for their staff on freedom of speech and academic freedom. They should provide this for all staff that make decisions in the following areas:

• admission, appointment, reappointment and promotion processes
• disciplinary processes
• employment contracts (that may include conditions on speech)
• processes and policies relating to equality or equity, diversity and inclusion, including the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)
• fitness to practice processes
• harassment and bullying policies
• IT policies and processes, including acceptable use policies and surveillance of social media use
• Prevent duty
• principles of curricular design
• research ethics
• speaker events
• staff and student codes of conduct.

The training should give staff an up-to-date understanding of the provider's free speech code of practice and the requirements of the Higher Education and Research Act, the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act 2010. 

Providers should also offer staff and students and student representatives adequate induction on freedom of speech. This should give them an up-to-date understanding of:

• the code of practice
• their own and others’ free speech and/or academic freedom rights.