Office for Students
Regulatory advice

Regulatory advice 24: Guidance related to freedom of speech

Published 19 June 2025

Section 3: Steps to secure freedom of speech

In this section:

  1. This section gives some examples of steps that are likely to be reasonably practicable in a wide range of circumstances. These are divided by areas of activity (such as ‘Codes of conduct’ or ‘Research’).
  2. Providers and their constituent institutions, having particular regard to the importance of freedom of speech, must take reasonably practicable steps to secure free speech within the law. Whether (and in what timescale) steps are reasonably practicable may vary according to the type of provider or constituent institution involved (for instance depending on size, specialisation or delivery of further education). However, the OfS expects that in a wide range of circumstances it will be reasonably practicable to take many of the steps set out below. This list is illustrative and includes steps that providers and their constituent institutions should take in the majority of circumstances.
  3. In any particular case, there may also be other reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech, in addition to those set out here. Where a step is reasonably practicable for a provider or constituent institution, it must be taken.

Admissions, appointments, employment and promotion

Admissions

  1. The following may be reasonably practicable steps for providers and their constituent institutions to take in connection with practices and policies relating to admissions.
  2. Providers and constituent institutions should not discriminate against a student applying to another course, for instance by refusing them admission or marking them down in the admissions assessment process, because of their viewpoint. They should not revoke or change the terms of their admission of an applicant with a binding offer because of the applicant’s viewpoint.
  3. Providers and constituent institutions should not admit students or visiting academics on the basis of funding arrangements or other criteria that have the effect of restricting their or others’ academic freedom or freedom of speech within the law. Reasonably practicable steps may include proactive checks, particularly where there are known risks relating to possible attempts to monitor, censor or intimidate students or staff at the provider or constituent institution. These may include undertaking robust risk-based human rights due diligence before entering into such arrangements.

Example 25: international students on visiting scholarships

University A accepts international students every year through a programme of visiting scholarships funded by the government of country B. One condition of the scholarships is that recipients must accept the basic principles of the ruling party of country B. Another condition is that recipients must accept direction from country B’s government via its diplomatic staff.

Arrangements like these are very likely to undermine free speech and academic freedom at University A. For instance, because of the first condition the university may be in effect setting a political test for entry to scholars. Because of the second condition scholars may be directed, by diplomatic staff of B, to suppress or monitor speech at the English provider where they hold those scholarships, through surveillance or physical intimidation or coercion of staff or other students at that provider.

Amendment or termination of these arrangements is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that University A should now take to comply with its ‘secure’ duty.

In this situation, it is also likely to be a reasonably practicable step for providers and constituent institutions to have in place, and publicise, robust internal disciplinary processes for addressing harassment and surveillance of this type.

Additional reasonably practicable steps are also likely to include due diligence such as accessing and translating official B-language documentation relating to these scholarships, for instance the contracts signed by students taking up these scholarships. This is likely to be especially important when there is a reasonable suspicion that conditions of funding, such as accepting the basic principles of the ruling party, are not overt.

Appointments

  1. Each provider and constituent institution must take reasonably practicable steps to achieve the objective of securing that, where a person applies to become a member of academic staff, the person is not adversely affected in relation to the application because they have exercised their freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, or to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions.45 The following may be reasonably practicable steps.
  2. Providers and constituent institutions should not require applicants to any academic position to commit (or give evidence of commitment) to a particular viewpoint.
  3. Any academic appointment process should include a sufficiently detailed record of all decisions. If appropriate (for instance, if concerns about free speech or 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 free speech or academic freedom. This may include, for instance, written reasons for the decision.
  4. Providers and constituent institutions should ensure adequate training on freedom of speech and academic freedom for anyone on an appointment panel. (See also ‘Training and induction’ below.)

Example 26: appointments to a foreign-funded institute

Institute A in University B is jointly funded by B and an entity based in a foreign country C. A proportion of staff at Institute A are appointed through a process managed within country C. This process imposes an ideological test as a condition of appointment and of ongoing employment.

These arrangements are likely to have the effect of penalising applicants to academic posts for their exercise of free speech or academic freedom. They may also have the effect of restricting the free speech and academic freedom of students and staff at University B. Amending these arrangements, including immediately and verifiably removing any test, or terminating this arrangement with Institute A, is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that University B should now take.

Example 27: job advert requiring commitments to political aims

University A advertises for a lecturer. The advertisement requires all applicants to demonstrate their commitment to certain political aims.

Depending on the circumstances, this requirement may penalise candidates for opinions or speech that have no bearing on competence in the relevant subject. In these circumstances, removing this requirement before advertising is likely to have been a reasonably practicable step that University A should have taken. Withdrawing the advertisement, and re-advertising without this requirement, is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that University A should now take.

Employment

  1. The following may be reasonably practicable steps that a provider or their constituent institution may take in connection with its practices and policies relating to employment.
  2. We would generally expect providers and constituent institutions, as promptly as is reasonably practicable and consistent with due process, and where appropriate publicly:
    • to reject public campaigns to punish a student or member of staff for lawful expression of an idea or viewpoint that does not violate any lawful internal regulations
    • to affirm students’ and staff members’ rights to make such statements regardless of any institutional position on the matter.

    These campaigns may take the form of organised petitions or open letters, an accumulation of spontaneous or organised social media posts, or long-running, focused media campaigns.

  1. Depending on the circumstances, rather than publicly distancing itself, it may be more helpful for a provider or its constituent institution to reiterate the importance of free speech for all staff and students, including the person affected. It may also be especially important for the response to be timely.

Example 28: paper accusing Shakespeare of racism

A postdoctoral researcher, A, publishes a paper accusing Shakespeare of ‘systematic racism’ based on an analysis of the sonnets. It is clear and accepted by all parties that A’s speech is lawful and does not violate any lawful regulations or restrictions at A’s University B.

A national newspaper accuses A of attacking a great national figure. It mounts a campaign calling for A to be fired. After two weeks of unnecessary delay, the vice-chancellor of B issues the following statement:

‘University B regards free speech as a fundamental value that is at the heart of everything we do. This extends even to views that we consider wrong and that many in our community reject. The views of A do not represent the views of university B. University B is proud of Britain’s literary heritage.’

The vice-chancellor of B did not intervene for two weeks. This period of uncertainty may itself have penalised A. Depending on the circumstances, the statement may have undermined A by criticising their position. The statement was not explicit that University B would not punish A. In these circumstances a clear, prompt and viewpoint-neutral response may have been a reasonably practicable step that University B should have taken.

Example 29: social media backlash against a lecturer’s blog

A lecturer, Dr C, writes a blog strongly defending the rights of trans people and claiming that these rights are under attack from activists. It is clear that C’s speech is lawful and does not violate any lawful regulations or restrictions at C’s employer, College D.

Dr C’s speech provokes an intense response on social media, including widespread calls for C to be fired. Dr C’s employer, College D, immediately issues the following statement internally, to the wider university community and publicly:

‘College D will not limit the views expressed by its staff or students beyond what the law prevents. College D will not require any apology from, or take any action against, its members, staff or students for their lawful expression of any viewpoint.’

This statement is likely to be helpful. It is prompt, categorical and neutral as to content. Depending on the circumstances, the statement may reduce pressure on Dr C. College D is likely to have taken some of the reasonably practicable steps that it should have taken to secure academic freedom for Dr C. There may be other reasonably practicable steps that College D should take.

  1. Wherever reasonably practicable providers and constituent institutions should not terminate employment for, or deny reappointment to, any member of staff because they have exercised free speech within the law to express a particular viewpoint.
  2. Each provider and constituent institution must take reasonably practicable steps to secure the academic freedom of their academic staff. This means that those staff are free to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves at risk of being adversely affected by losing their jobs or privileges or reducing their likelihood of securing promotion or different jobs at the provider or constituent institution.
  3. Providers and constituent institutions should not require holders of any academic position to commit (or give evidence of commitment) to a particular viewpoint. This is distinct from a requirement to teach within the boundaries of disciplinary relevance and disciplinary competence, which is likely to engage the essential function of teaching.

Example 30: mis-teaching calculus

University A employs Dr B to teach mathematics, including core basic material on calculus. Based on his own lack of knowledge and understanding, Dr B instead teaches an incoherent alternative theory. He criticises standard calculus in class and marks students down for correctly applying standard methods. Following complaints, the university investigates and issues Dr B with a formal warning.

It is unlikely that the university has breached its ‘secure’ duty. Dr B’s marking practices and speech in class undermine the teaching function of University A, because competent teaching of calculus is essential to its course provision. It is unlikely to be reasonably practicable for the university to secure Dr B’s speech in this context.

  1. Any process of dismissal for a member of academic staff should include a sufficiently detailed record of all decisions. If appropriate (for instance, if concerns about academic freedom have arisen or might reasonably arise), this record should include evidence that the process did not penalise a member of staff for their exercise of academic freedom. This may include, for instance, written reasons for the decision.
  2. Providers and constituent institutions should ensure adequate training on freedom of speech and academic freedom for anyone involved in making recommendations or decisions in relation to the dismissal of a member of staff. (See also ‘Training and induction’ below.)

Example 31: campaign against a staff member with pro-life views

A member of catering staff at University A writes to the local newspaper lawfully expressing pro-life views. Students at the university start a petition to have the member of staff fired. Following an investigation, University A fires the staff member on the grounds that there are students who claim to feel unsafe because of the staff member’s continued employment.

Depending on the circumstances, this is likely to have been a breach of University A’s free speech duties. This is because there was nothing to suggest that the staff member’s speech was unlawful or that it violated any lawful regulations or restrictions at A. For instance, claims that the staff member’s employment makes others feel unsafe are not, by themselves, enough to make that member’s speech unlawful. In these circumstances, retaining (and not disciplining) the staff member is likely to have been a reasonably practicable step that University A should have taken. Reinstating the staff member may now be a reasonably practicable step that University A should take.

Promotion

  1. Each provider and constituent institution must take reasonably practicable steps to achieve the objective of securing that, where a person applies for academic promotion, the person is not adversely affected in relation to the application because they have exercised their freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, or to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions. The following may be reasonably practicable steps.
  2. Providers and constituent institutions should not require applicants for academic promotion to commit (or give evidence of commitment) to values, beliefs or ideas, if that may disadvantage any candidate for exercising their academic freedom within the law.
  3. Any academic promotion process should include a sufficiently detailed record of all decisions. If appropriate (for instance, 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.
  4. Providers and constituent institutions should ensure adequate training on freedom of speech and academic freedom for anyone on a promotion panel. (See also ‘Training and induction’ below.)

Example 32: requiring a commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion

University A requires all candidates for academic promotion to submit a 500-word statement of evidence of commitment to equality (or equity), diversity and inclusion (EDI).

Depending on the circumstances, this requirement may be restricting the lawful expression of certain viewpoints. For instance, a lecturer might be sceptical of some aspects of EDI and may be deterred from applying for promotion, or may be refused promotion, as a result. Removing this requirement from promotion processes is then likely to be a reasonably practicable step that University A should now take.

Example 33: encouraging applications from underrepresented races

University B takes positive steps to encourage members of underrepresented races to apply for promotion. For instance, it invites members of those groups to special events related to promotion. It also publicises successful role models from within those groups. All applicants for promotion are evaluated solely on merit.

Assume that in the circumstances, the steps taken are a proportionate means of encouraging more people with a certain protected characteristic to apply for promotion and that, in the specific case, the steps are lawful under the Equality Act.

In taking these actions it is unlikely that University B has breached its ‘secure’ duty.

Codes of conduct

  1. The following may be reasonably practicable steps for a provider or constituent institution to take in connection with its codes of conduct.
  2. Where a provider or constituent institution adopts a rule of conduct that restricts lawful speech, that rule must, in line with Article 10(2) of the Convention, be prescribed by law. This means that:
    1. there is a specific English legal rule or regime which authorises the interference;
    2. the student, member, member of staff or visiting speaker who is affected by the interference has adequate access to the rule in question; and
    3. the rule is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the student, member of staff or visiting speaker to foresee the circumstances in which the law would or might be applied, and the likely consequences that might follow.
  3. In framing restrictions on speech, it is generally helpful for providers or constituent institutions to adopt, within the same document, clear statements explicitly protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom. It will be important for a provider or constituent institution to consider the adequacy of any such statements in protecting both freedom of speech and academic freedom.
  4. Restrictions, regulations and protections are more likely to work effectively where they apply objective tests and avoid vague language or undefined terms. Using legal definitions where available is likely to be helpful in setting clear expectations for students, members, staff and visiting speakers.
  5. The terms of any code, contract or policy should not be so broad that they suppress the lawful expression of a particular viewpoint or of a wide range of legally expressible content.

Example 34: contracts requiring employees to uphold social justice

College A’s employment contract states: ‘College employees must uphold the college’s commitment to social justice.’

Upholding social justice is not an essential function of the college. Depending on the particular facts of the case, this statement may suppress lawful expression of scepticism about some conceptions of social justice. If so, removing this contractual requirement is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that College A should now take.

Example 35: student handbook on misgendering

University A’s student handbook states: ‘Misgendering is never acceptable. You must always address or refer to a person using their preferred pronouns.’

This blanket ban on misgendering is likely to breach the ‘secure’ duty.

For instance, a student writing a dissertation in criminology might refer to trans women as ‘he’ because the student considers this necessary for clarity. This is unlikely to amount to harassment.

There may be circumstances in which the use of dispreferred pronouns could amount to harassment. For instance, repeated and deliberate misgendering directed by a teacher to a particular student in one of their classes may amount to harassment.

However, we would expect that any code of conduct that regulates the use of pronouns on these grounds would narrowly tailor any restriction to those circumstances. It must not, in intent or effect, prohibit the expression of a lawful viewpoint (for instance, the viewpoint that gender is a fiction).

Removing this blanket rule is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that University A should now take.

Example 36: IT policy

University A’s IT acceptable use policy says: ‘Users must not transmit offensive material using university internet facilities.’

Many lawfully expressible views are likely to be offensive to some. This includes contributions to academic debate. The policy may restrict essential functions of the university. Removing or amending it is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that A should now take.

A’s policy is more likely to be compliant if instead of ‘offensive material’ it refers to material that is unlawful, including (for instance) under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, or Part 10 of the Online Safety Act 2023.

  1. Policies and other statements should not discourage lawful speech by misrepresenting a provider’s or constituent institution’s legal duties. This may include oversimplification – for instance, by omitting the importance of freedom of speech.

Example 37: mis-statements of the law

University A’s Prevent guidance document states (without qualification): ‘The University has a duty to prevent extremism.’

Its PSED guidance document states (without qualification): ‘The University has a duty to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.’

These mis-statements of the law may restrict freedom of speech within the law. For instance, they may encourage staff to control or restrict reading lists. In a politics course, for instance, staff might be reluctant to set unorthodox, radical or potentially upsetting texts.

It would be a reasonably practicable step that University A should now take to amend the guidance document to state these duties accurately. For instance, the Prevent guidance should instead refer to the duty to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. And it should make clear that when carrying out its Prevent duty, University A must have particular regard to the duty to ensure freedom of speech and to the importance of academic freedom. Similarly, the PSED guidance should instead refer to the duty to have due regard to (among other things) the need to foster good relations between the classes of people concerned.[46]

  1. Policies that regulate
    1. protests and demonstrations;
    2. posting or distributing written material (such as flyers); or
    3. recruitment activities

    should not restrict these activities because they express or support a particular legally expressible viewpoint. However, in certain circumstances (this will be a fact-sensitive assessment) it may be necessary and appropriate for providers or constituent institutions to regulate the time, place and manner of a protest or demonstration. For example, this may be necessary if those attending a place of worship are at risk of intimidatory harassment.

  2. Any regulation of these activities should be proportionate under Article 10 (see section 2, step 3 above).

Example 38: posting flyers and distributing leaflets

College B requires students to seek written permission a month before they post flyers, which must be posted on a designated noticeboard. The noticeboard is small, and flyers may not be posted anywhere else. It also requires students to seek written permission a month before they hand out leaflets anywhere on college premises.

Depending on the particular facts of the case, these regulations may be unnecessarily onerous. If so, rewriting the regulations to address this is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that B should now take.

Complaints and investigation processes

  1. The following may be reasonably practicable steps that a provider or constituent institution may take in connection with its complaints and investigations processes.
  2. Providers and constituent institutions should not encourage students or staff to report others over lawful expression of a particular viewpoint.

Example 39: reporting ‘microaggressions’ anonymously

University A promotes an anonymous (and not merely confidential) reporting process. Students are encouraged to use a portal to submit anonymous reports to senior staff of ‘microaggressions’, which is not further defined. The portal includes free text boxes in which reporters may name or otherwise identify the individuals being accused. University A says that it may take action against named (or identifiable) individuals on the basis of any anonymous report that it receives. It also says that even if it does not take action, it will retain all information that it receives for six years and may share it with external bodies (such as funding agencies).

Depending on the circumstances, the existence of the reporting mechanism and portal may discourage open and lawful discussion of controversial topics, including political topics and matters of public interest.

However, University A might reasonably wish to collect anonymised statistical data for the purposes of identifying geographical and secular trends in relation to harassment or sexual misconduct. Reasonably practicable steps that A could now take may include:

  • remove the free text boxes from the anonymous reporting portal to be replaced with radio buttons that do not permit submission of any identifying data
  • state the category of reportable speech more precisely and more narrowly, e.g. harassment and/or sexual misconduct as defined in E6.11k and E.611s of the OfS’s condition of registration, E6
  • clarify in the portal that an anonymous report will result in no further action but is solely for data collection purposes.

Condition of registration E6 requires a provider to ensure that it has appropriate reporting mechanisms in practice and to ensure that information is handled sensitively and used fairly in practice. The OfS’s guidance on the condition sets this out in more detail.47

  1. 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.

Example 40: complaint about a professor’s speech at a protest

Professor A at University B takes part in a protest against the policies of country C. Professor A gives a speech at the protest. In the circumstances this speech is clearly a lawful expression of political views.

However, Professor A’s expressed views upset some students at University B. They bring a complaint against Professor A. There is a lengthy investigation process. At the end of this process, University B finds that there is no case to answer. This should have been clear to investigators at the outset, but University B was concerned that closing the investigation quickly would further offend the students who complained.

The prospect of a lengthy investigation with an uncertain outcome may deter students and staff from putting forward unpopular views on controversial topics. In this case the investigation itself punished Professor A for lawful expression of a viewpoint. The fact that A’s speech offended some students is unlikely to be relevant to whether closing the investigation was a reasonably practicable step. It is likely that University B has breached its ‘secure’ duty.

A rapid triage process may ensure swift dismissal of complaints about speech that do not warrant further investigation. Putting in place such a triage process is likely to be a further reasonably practicable step that University B should now take.

  1. Complaints processes should be concluded as rapidly as is reasonably practicable and compatible with fairness.
  2. Providers and constituent institutions should not pursue vexatious complaints or trivial investigations into other matters against an individual solely because of their lawful expression of a viewpoint. In practice, it may not always be possible to determine that a complaint is vexatious at the outset of any investigation.

Free speech code of practice

Publication and format

  1. Providers and constituent institutions must bring their free speech code of practice (as well as the provisions of section A1 of the Act) to the attention of students at least once a year.48 Beyond this, in connection with the publication and format of the free speech code of practice, the following steps are likely to be good practice.
  2. It would be good practice for the document to be published in a prominent position. For instance, it should be visible on the provider’s or constituent institution’s website. It should be easily accessible by students, members of staff, visiting speakers and those considering applying to be students. It should be accessible without any form of password or security check.
  3. It would be good practice for there to be a clear and simple statement about the document. This statement should summarise its content. It should also make clear how to access it (for instance, by including a link). It would be good practice for the statement to be:
    1. communicated directly to all students and staff in writing at least once each calendar year;
    2. set out in any prospectus of the provider or constituent institution;
    3. set out in any student or staff handbooks;and
    4. prominently included, or prominently linked to, in any other document stating or explaining any policy that may affect free speech or academic freedom (for instance a bullying and harassment policy, research ethics policy or fitness to practise procedure), along with a statement that in cases of uncertainty, the definitive and up-to-date statement of the institution’s approach to freedom of speech is set out in the code. This includes all policies relating to any of the following matters:
      • admissions, appointments, reappointments and promotions
      • disciplinary matters
      • employment contracts (that may include conditions on speech)
      • equality or equity, diversity and inclusion, including the PSED
      • fitness to practise policies and procedures
      • harassment and bullying policies
      • IT, 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.

Values relating to freedom of speech

  1. HERA requires providers and constituent institutions to set out, in their free speech codes of practice, their values relating to freedom of speech with an explanation of how those values uphold freedom of speech.49
  2. Providers and constituent institutions are well placed to articulate their values relating to free speech and academic freedom. However, providers and constituent institutions may consider including the following:
    1. a statement about the overarching value of freedom of speech within the law for the organisation in question
    2. an explanation of how the provider’s or constituent institution’s values relating to freedom of speech uphold freedom of speech
    3. a statement emphasising the very high level of protection for the lawful expression of a viewpoint and for speech in an academic context
    4. a statement that freedom of speech within the law may include speech that is shocking, disturbing or offensive.

Procedures to be followed by staff and students

  1. HERA requires that the code of practice sets out procedures to be followed in connection with the organisation of meetings and other activities. In connection with that section of the code, the following may be reasonably practicable steps for a provider or constituent institution to take to secure freedom of speech.
  2. The scope of the procedures section of the document should be broad. It should not be limited to policies relating to external speakers or events. The code of practice should apply to the procedures to be followed by staff and students of the provider or constituent institution when organising teaching or research-related activities, as well as other activities listed in paragraph 171d above. There should be links to the code of practice from the documents setting out the detailed procedures relating to those other activities.
  3. The content of the procedures section should clearly and expressly require decision-makers, in making any decision or adopting any policy that could directly or indirectly (and positively or negatively) affect freedom of speech, to act compatibly with the statutory free speech duties.
  4. The procedures for organising room bookings and speaker events should adhere to the following principles, which are widely recognised:
    1. They should make clear that the starting point for any event is that it should go ahead and that cancellation is exceptional and undesirable.
    2. The procedures should be clearly set out.
    3. The process should not take longer than necessary.
    4. There should where possible be a single, identified point of contact for questions about the process.
    5. There should be identified person(s) responsible for approval of an event. Any final decision to cancel an event, or to delay indefinitely, should only be taken by a suitably senior official (who may be, for instance, at pro-vice-chancellor or vice-chancellor level), who has delegated authority to take it.
    6. There should not be onerous requirements for information.
  5. A provider or constituent institution should set out in this section of its code of practice a process for the timely consideration of risks to the event. The purpose of the process would be to put in place steps that permit the event to go ahead. The document should specify who would be responsible for planning and taking these steps. (See also example 48 below.)
  6. For additional guidance on visiting speakers see ‘Speaker events’ below.

Required conduct

  1. HERA requires that the free speech code of practice sets out the conduct required in connection with relevant meetings and other activities. In connection with this section of the free speech code of practice, the following may be reasonably practicable steps for a provider or constituent institution to take to secure freedom of speech.
  2. The scope of this section should replicate that in the procedures section of the free speech code of practice.
  3. The content of this section should be consistent with the following principles:
    1. Everyone has the right to free speech within the law.
    2. Providers and constituent institutions should seek to expose students to a wide range of views, including those that challenge commonly accepted ideas and conventional wisdom. There should be no limit in principle to the range of views within the law to which students, staff and members might be exposed across the full range of speaker meetings and other activities covered by the code. These may include views that some or all students might find shocking, disturbing or offensive.
    3. If those organising an event invite speakers who they might reasonably have suspected would use their platform to break the law (e.g. because they have done so previously) they may fall foul of the law themselves.
    4. Peaceful protest is itself a legitimate expression of freedom of speech. However, protest must not shut down debate.50

Criteria for passing on security costs

  1. HERA requires that a provider or constituent institution must secure that, apart from in exceptional circumstances, use of its premises by any individual or body is not on terms that require the individual or body to bear some or all the costs of security relating to their use of the premises.51
  2. The criteria for ‘exceptional’ circumstances, in which the provider or constituent institution may pass on security costs to the organiser of an event, are for the provider or constituent institution to set. However, HERA places a duty on providers and constituent institutions to set out in the free speech code of practice the criteria for determining whether there are exceptional circumstances.52
  3. As a reasonably practicable step to securing freedom of speech, these criteria should be clear, objective and neutral. This means that both the criteria for assessing security costs, and the definition of what counts as exceptional circumstances, should not (so far as is consistent with the law) depend on any of the following:
    1. in relation to any individual, their ideas or opinions;
    2. in relation to any body, its policy or objectives or the ideas or opinions of any of its members; and
    3. in relation to the event, the ideas, opinions or information likely to get lawful expression at it.
  4. The criteria should be framed in such a way that ‘exceptional’ circumstances only arise very rarely.
  5. For instance, a provider might have a stated policy that it will not pass on the first £X of security costs associated with the use of its premises by an individual or body, where X is stated as a numerical quantity that applies to all individuals or bodies regardless of their ideas, opinions, policies or objectives; and where security costs rarely exceed £X.

Example 41: security costs and offensive views

College A’s policy on the use of its premises states: ‘We will not pass on security costs for outside events except in exceptional circumstances. “Exceptional” circumstances may include those in which the views expressed at such an event are exceptionally offensive or especially likely to shock or disturb.’

Example 42: security costs above a fixed amount

College B’s policy on the use of its premises states: ‘We will not pass on security costs for outside events except in exceptional circumstances. Circumstances are “exceptional” when security costs exceed £X. In these circumstances we will pass on the residue of security costs to the organisers.’ Security costs would very rarely exceed £X.

In example 41, College A has defined ‘exceptional circumstances’ vaguely and in a way that depends on the viewpoints that may be expressed. Replacing this definition with a clear, objective and neutral specification of ‘exceptional’ circumstances, as in example 42, is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that College A should now take towards securing freedom of speech within the law for visiting speakers and others.

  1. It may also be a reasonably practicable step for the provider or constituent institution to apply its policy uniformly. That is, it will always pass on security costs above the first £X (or whatever the stated threshold is) where these arise. It should not apply the policy in a manner that depends to any extent on the matters stated in 183a-c.

Example 43: inconsistent approach to security costs

University B has a stated policy that it ‘may’ pass on security costs above £X to the organisers of an event.

A national Islamic society hires premises of University B to host a conference to which students and staff of University B are invited. There is reason to expect serious disruption at the event. As a result, University B estimates security costs to be £2,000 above the threshold. However, it covers these costs in their entirety.

Two weeks later, a national Jewish society hires the same premises to host a conference to which students and staff of B are again invited. There is reason to expect serious disruption at the event. As a result, University B again estimates security costs to be £2,000 above the threshold. It covers the first £X but passes on the remaining £2,000 to the organisers. As a result, the event is cancelled.

In this example University B may have applied its policy inconsistently to two groups in a way that depends on the policies or objectives of those groups or on the ideas and opinions of their members. If so, University B is likely to have breached its free speech duties. Covering costs equally for both groups is likely to have been a reasonably practicable step that University B should have taken towards securing freedom of speech within the law for visiting speakers.

  1. As a reasonably practicable step the provider or constituent institution should supply the organiser of the event with a clear written summary of its calculation of the expected security cost and an explanation for this calculation. Where reasonably practicable it must also have in place a process for appealing this calculation to an independent review, and for the provider or constituent institution to supply this summary in enough time for the event organiser to appeal the calculation.
  2. Whether a commercial booking is in scope of the duty relating to security costs depends on whether there is any relation between the commercial event and the objective of securing freedom of speech within the law for the classes of persons set out at A1(2). If there is no relation, the commercial booking would not be captured. However, if a commercial entity hosts an event to which staff, members or students are invited, this may be likely to be captured. As soon as an event involves persons within the categories set out in the objective at A1(2), the provision would be likely to apply.

Governance

  1. The following may be reasonably practicable steps for a provider or constituent institution to take in connection with governance.
  2. Providers and constituent institutions should record all decisions that are likely to have a substantial (positive or negative) effect on freedom of speech within the law. These records should demonstrate how the provider or constituent institution has had particular regard for the importance of freedom of speech within the law. Wherever reasonably practicable, records should be kept for as long as necessary to be available for external review (for instance, through judicial review, a regulatory investigation or a relevant complaints process).
  3. Providers and constituent institutions should put in place and follow delegation arrangements setting out clearly and explicitly which committees or individuals are authorised to make decisions that are likely to have a substantial (positive or negative) effect on compliance with any free speech duties.
  4. Providers and constituent institutions should ensure that terms of reference, of all committees that could affect compliance with free speech duties, expressly provide for consideration of this impact. This includes committees responsible for any of the following matters:
    1. admission, appointment, reappointment and promotion processes
    2. disciplinary processes
    3. employment contracts (that may include conditions on speech)
    4. processes and policies relating to equality or equity, diversity and inclusion, including the PSED
    5. fitness to practise
    6. harassment and bullying policies
    7. IT policies and processes, including acceptable use policies and surveillance of social media use
    8. Prevent duty
    9. principles of curricular design
    10. research ethics
    11. speaker events
    12. staff and student codes of conduct.
  5. Providers and (where relevant) constituent institutions should ensure that decisions about the curriculum and the way it is delivered:
    1. safeguard the autonomy of individual academics to teach and communicate lawful ideas that may be controversial or unpopular or that some (or many) find offensive; and
    2. do not restrict the exposure to students of such ideas because they are controversial or unpopular or because some (or many) find them offensive.

Research

  1. The following may be reasonably practicable steps for a provider or constituent institution to take in connection with research. ‘Research’ refers to any form of intellectual inquiry.
  2. Staff and students should be free to undertake academic research within the law. This freedom should not be restricted or compromised in any way because of a perceived or actual tension between:
    1. any conclusions that the research may reach or has reached or the viewpoint it supports, and
    2. the organisation’s policies or values.

    Nor should it be restricted or compromised in any way because of any external pressure connected with a. If funding bodies exert pressure on researchers to reach or to avoid particular results, amending or terminating these funding arrangements is likely to be a reasonably practicable step for providers and constituent institutions to take.

  3. Reasonably practicable steps for providers and constituent institutions to take, in relation to research ethics committees, may include:
    1. ensuring that ethical review and requirements are focused on ethical issues and do not impose requirements related to the quality of the proposed research or reputational concerns;
    2. ensuring that ethics review committees have particular regard to the importance of academic freedom and to the risks to academic freedom of any decision;
    3. ensuring that the ethical review process is transparent; and
    4. closely monitoring the ethics review process for evidence of unnecessary suppression of research.

Example 44: conditions on research

Professor A wishes to conduct research among former police officers from country X who engaged in torture and interrogation. This research would include interviews with these officers. These interviews are likely to confirm that some staff from the X police force had attended postgraduate training on policing techniques offered by Professor A’s employer, University Y.

Professor A submits her research proposal to the University Research Ethics Committee (‘UREC’) at University Y. The UREC approves Professor A’s proposal on the condition that she does not interview any officers who have attended training at Y.

No reason is given for this restriction in the minutes of the UREC meeting. Nor is there any record that decision-makers have had regard to Professor A’s academic freedom. Freedom of Information requests for emails between senior staff reveal that the restrictions on Professor A’s research arose from internal concern about the reputational effects on Y.

Imposing this condition on Professor A’s research is likely to have been a breach of Y’s ‘secure’ duty. This is because these reputational concerns are irrelevant to whether it is reasonably practicable for Y to approve Professor A’s research without this condition. Approving Professor A’s research without the condition is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that University Y should now take. Other reasonably practicable steps are likely to include:

  • ensuring transparency of decision-making by the UREC
  • requiring the UREC to have, and to document how it has had, particular regard in its decision-making for the academic freedom of Y’s researchers.

Example 45: response to published research on violent crime and a religion

Research associate X at College A works on the connection between violent crime and religion B. She publishes research suggesting a strong connection. Because her work reaches this conclusion, students at College A start a petition for X to be fired. The petition gains hundreds of signatures internationally.

Following investigation, A finds that the conclusion of this research conflicts with its value of respect for all religions. On this basis it terminates X’s employment.

It is likely that College A has breached its ‘secure’ duty. This is because alignment of X’s research findings with A’s values is likely to be irrelevant to whether it is reasonably practicable for A to secure X’s free speech. It is likely that it would have been a reasonably practicable step not to terminate her employment. It may also be a reasonably practicable step to reinstate her.

Example 46: scholar criticising a foreign country

Dr A is an international relations scholar at University B. Dr A has written articles criticising certain policies of foreign country C. The ambassador of country C calls the vice-chancellor of University B, pressuring the university to censor Dr A. As a result, B does not support Dr A’s work on country C. For instance, B does not support his application for a research grant that would have funded work relating to C. Nor does it take any action when Dr A’s visa from C is revoked, so that he cannot enter C for purposes of conducting academic research.

It is likely that B has breached its ‘secure’ duty. This is because the views of country C are irrelevant to whether it is reasonably practicable for University B to support Dr A’s research. Supporting Dr A’s application for a grant is likely to have been a reasonably practicable step that B should have taken.

There may also be other reasonably practicable steps that University B should now take. For instance, B might have invited the ambassador or other officials of country C to a function at B: if so, it might consider cancelling that invitation. Depending on the level of the threat to Dr A, University B may also be required to put in place suitable security arrangements to protect Dr A’s person and his ability to continue research.

  1. Academic freedom is fundamental to the functioning of any higher education institution. The effect of the ‘secure’ duty is that providers and constituent institutions may be required to incur significant costs in defence of the freedom of their own staff and students to conduct research.

Speaker events

  1. Providers and constituent institutions must take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech for visiting speakers and others. This objective includes securing that the use of any premises is not denied to any individual or body on the following grounds:
      1. in relation to an individual, their ideas or opinions;
      2. in relation to a body, its policy or objectives or the ideas or opinions of any of its members

    and that the terms on which such premises are provided are not to any extent based on such grounds.

  2. The ‘secure’ duty does not mean that any group or speaker has a right to be invited to speak at a provider or constituent institution. What it does mean is that a speaker who has been invited to speak at a meeting or other event should not be stopped from doing so on the grounds of their ideas or opinions.
  3. Depending on the circumstances, it may occasionally be consistent with this duty that the provider or constituent institution regulates which premises may be used for a particular event and at what time they may be used, on grounds related (for instance) to the policy or objectives of the body to which it is making the premises available.

Example 47: annual conference of a political society

A political society that supports the governing party of country A seeks to hold its annual conference at University B. It deliberately attempts to book a venue next to prayer rooms used by students and staff belonging to the C faith. The current regime of country A has a long history of persecuting the C minority in that country. B declines to permit the political society to use those premises, but instead offers other premises in another part of the campus.

In this example University B has not made available the premises requested by the society, and it has made that choice based in part on the policy of that society. However, it has not restricted the expression of any viewpoint because it has made appropriate alternative premises available. In itself this regulation of speech is unlikely to breach the ‘secure’ duty.

  1. It is likely to be a reasonably practicable step for a provider or constituent institution to have in place a process for the timely consideration of controversial events. The purpose of the process would be to put in place mitigating steps that permit the event to go ahead. The process should specify who would be responsible for planning and taking these steps.

Example 48: threat to seminar on animal experiments

Professor A is due to visit University B to give a seminar on animal experiments. She has warned the organisers that the event may be controversial. However, University B has no effective notification process for external speakers. Therefore, the warnings are not escalated. Hours before the event, staff at B learn of a credible threat that animal rights activists will attempt to disrupt the event and to attack the speaker. The university cancels the event.

In this example University B may have had no alternative to cancelling the event on the day that it was due to take place. However, if it had had in place, and acted upon, an external speaker policy that enabled timely escalation of the issue, then it need not have got into that position in the first place. There would have been time to consider suitable security arrangements to enable the event to go ahead. Having in place such a policy, and acting on it, are likely to have been reasonably practicable steps that University B should have taken.

  1. In many circumstances it is likely to be a reasonably practicable step for a provider or constituent institution not to cancel any event on the basis of the opinions or ideas of any speaker at that event, in response to objections or protests however widespread.

Example 49: politics seminar involving local MP

A student politics society arranges a seminar between the local MP and representatives of opposing parties. The seminar is to be held on the premises of the students’ union. One of the proposed speakers has previously, and legally, campaigned to raise awareness of human rights abuses against members of a minority group in country A by the A majority population. Local activists collect signatures for a petition that criticises the event as a form of   persecution of the A community. The students’ union cancels the event. It says that it has done this ‘out of respect for the feelings of the local A community’.

The associated provider becomes aware of the cancellation. It decides to host the seminar on its own premises citing the need to secure free speech under A1 of HERA. The provider puts on security for the event to ensure students, members and staff can participate as it anticipates there may be some risk of disruption. A protest does take place, allegedly led by an elected students’ union representative and other students. This temporarily disrupts the seminar, but it continues and finishes as planned. The provider carries out an investigation into the conduct of the students’ union and students in connection with the event, including the cancelled event, citing its need to secure compliance with its code of practice under section A2(4) of Part A1 of HERA.

The steps taken by the provider on learning about the seminar cancellation are likely to amount to reasonably practicable steps to secure free speech. Depending on the facts of the investigation and any outcome to it, the provider may also have taken reasonably practicable steps to ensure compliance with its code of practice under section A2(4).

  1. It is likely to be a reasonably practicable step for a provider or constituent institution not to interfere with free speech or academic freedom any more than is necessary to ensure that the event goes ahead safely and within the law.

Example 50: seminar series on political violence

College A is due to hold a seminar series on political violence. One of the speakers, Dr B, is expected to discuss (within the law) some especially extreme and polarising examples that are likely to upset some students in the audience. College A requires Dr B to omit those examples from the discussion.

Requiring Dr B to omit this material is likely to be a breach of college A’s ‘secure’ duty. A might instead have taken evidence-based mitigations short of restricting the content of Dr B’s academic speech.

For instance, if there is evidence that this is helpful, then it might have approached its own welfare services to provide support for people affected by the issues raised, rather than preventing them from being raised at all. In many circumstances, this may have been a reasonably practicable step that A should have taken.

Depending on the facts, issuing a ‘content note’ (informing attendees about sensitive material) in advance of this event may not be a reasonably practicable step for A to take. A standing requirement to use content notes may encourage more intrusive investigation of the content of seminars, readings or speaker events. An expectation of content notes may also discourage academics from exposing students to new controversial material (so as not to risk wrongly including no, or the wrong type of, content note).

However, there may be occasions when the use of specific content notes may be helpful to enable students to access material, if there is evidence that they are in fact helpful.

  1. The OfS will not protect Holocaust denial (by visiting speakers or anyone else).

Teaching

  1. The following may be reasonably practicable steps for a provider or constituent institution to take in connection with teaching.
  2. Providers and constituent institutions should not treat a student unfavourably, or less favourably than it treats or would treat another student—
    1. in the way it provides education for the student;
    2. in the way it affords the student access to a benefit, facility or service;
    3. by not providing education for the student;
    4. by not affording the student access to a benefit, facility or service;
    5. by excluding the student; or
    6. by subjecting the student to any other detriment

    on the grounds of that student’s opinions or ideas.

  3. Academic staff should not be constrained or pressured in their teaching to endorse or reject particular value judgements.

Example 51: teaching materials on British history

University A requires that all teaching materials on British history will represent Britain in a positive light. This requirement suppresses teaching materials on the basis of the viewpoint that they express. Removing it is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that A should now take.

Example 52: endorsing fossil fuel exploration for accreditation

Department A of University B applies for accreditation to a charter body with links to the fossil fuel industry. The accreditation process requires it to sign up to a set of principles. These include the principle that ‘Fossil fuel exploration is the best way to meet our future energy needs.’

Depending on the circumstances, institutional endorsement of this principle may discourage expression of legally expressible views. Not implementing the provisions of any accreditation that risks undermining free speech and academic freedom is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that University B should now take.

Training and induction

  1. The following may be reasonably practicable steps for a provider or constituent institution to take in connection with training and induction.
  2. So far as is reasonably practicable, providers and constituent institutions should offer adequate training on freedom of speech and academic freedom. This training should be required for all staff involved in making decisions in relation to (for example) the following.
    1. admission, appointment, reappointment and promotion
    2. disciplinary matters
    3. employment contracts (that may include conditions on speech)
    4. processes and policies relating to equality or equity, diversity and inclusion, including the PSED
    5. fitness to practise
    6. harassment and bullying
    7. IT policies and processes, including acceptable use policies and surveillance of social media use
    8. Prevent duty
    9. principles of curricular design
    10. research ethics
    11. speaker events
    12. staff and student codes of conduct.
  3. ‘Adequate training’ means that staff will have an up-to-date understanding of:
    1. the free speech code of practice and how it applies in practice, including its application in detail to the member of staff’s role in the organisation; and
    2. the requirements of HERA, the Human Rights Act (HRA) and the Equality Act 2010 in relation to freedom of speech and how they apply in detail to the member of staff’s role in the organisation.
  4. So far as is reasonably practicable, providers and constituent institutions should make available, to all staff and students, adequate induction on freedom of speech and academic freedom. ‘Adequate induction’ means that all staff and students will have at least an up-to-date understanding of:
    1. the free speech code of practice and how it applies in practice;
    2. their own free speech rights under HERA, the HRA and the Equality Act 2010; and
    3. the free speech rights of members, members of staff, students and visiting speakers under HERA, the HRA and the Equality Act 2010.
  5. Providers and constituent institutions should not require training or induction that imposes a requirement on the person completing the training actively to endorse any viewpoint or value-judgement. The preceding sentence and the associated example 53 relate to compelled speech within training: training that cannot be completed unless the user actively assents to a particular viewpoint or value-judgement that they may reject.
  6. By contrast, we do not intend to discourage institutions from offering or requiring training on sensitive subjects, including training that itself asserts positions with which some users may disagree.

Example 53: race-awareness training that compels assent

A department at University A requires incoming students to complete race-awareness training. As part of the training, they must complete a test. They cannot matriculate unless they answer all questions correctly.

One question on the test is as follows: ‘All white people are complicit in the structural racism pervading British society. True or false?’ The only answer marked correct is ‘True’. A candidate who ticks ‘False’ is required to re-take the test until they have explicitly assented to ‘True’.

Depending on the circumstances, this training may impose a requirement to endorse a particular viewpoint. For instance, it may penalise anyone who thinks that some white people are not complicit in racism. If so, removing this question from the training is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that University A should now take.

Example 54: race-awareness training that does not compel assent

A department at University B requires incoming students to complete race-awareness training. As part of the training, they must complete a test. They cannot matriculate until they have completed the module.

One question on the test is as follows: ‘White people can sometimes be victims of racism. True or false?’ The only answer marked correct is ‘True’. If a candidate ticks the box marked ‘False’, the module explains to them why it has marked this as wrong. Having explained this, it does not then require the candidate explicitly to assent to this or to undergo significant additional training because of their answer.

This training does not compel assent to any viewpoint, although it does itself make assertions with which some students may disagree. Requiring students to take training that does not compel assent is in itself unlikely to breach the ‘secure’ duty.

Notes

[45] See HERA s.A1(8) and (9).

[46] See EA 2010 section 149 and CTSA 2015 section 26 and section 31.

[47] See paragraphs 30-31 of the guidance at: Condition E6: Harassment and sexual misconduct.

[48] See HERA Part A1 s. A2 (5) and s. A4.

[49] See HERA Part A1 Section A2(2)(a), Section A4 and Section A6(2)(a).

[50] Similar or overlapping principles are set out in the Joint Committee on Human Rights report ‘Freedom of Speech in Universities’, 2018.

[51] See HERA Part A1 section A1(10), section A5(2).

[52] See HERA Part A1 section A2(2)(d), section A4, section A6(2)(d)(ii).

Published 19 June 2025
Help us improve your experience

Describe your experience of using this website

Improve experience feedback
* *

Thank you for your feedback