Lois McLatchie is the Communications Officer for ADF UK, a legal advocacy organization that promotes freedom of speech.
University terms are winding down for exams. Another term passes with no long-awaited protections of free speech in law.
Campuses have, for some time, been a hot spot of the culture wars. One in four students don’t share their opinions at university because they clash with those promoted by their institution. From the railing protests in Sussex against gender-critical feminists like Kathleen Stock, to the irony of cancelling Claire Fox’s presentation on “the importance of debate” at Royal Holloway: headlines seem to break every few months detailing the terror of the student hive mind at any form of challenging thought.
The ground has long been ripe for an easy Tory win from championing free speech on campus, proving their credentials as supporters of liberalism, and appealing to the common-sense of voters. A bill was introduced in the 2021 Queen’s Speech that introduced a bold approach to restoring academic freedom and meaningful debate at universities.
Boris Johnson’s government would, for the first time, require Students’ Unions to take “reasonably practicable steps” to secure lawful freedom of speech for members and visiting speakers. Academics, students, or guest presenters would be empowered to seek compensation through the courts if they suffered a loss from a breach of the free speech duties under the proposed legislation.
Furthermore, a new Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom at the Office for Students would be created, with powers to investigate infringements of freedom of speech on university campuses. Yet Masters students who were facing the free speech freeze when this bill was introduced will be long-graduated by the time any of this change can be implemented. Why has the bill been allowed to languish for so long?
The fault does not lie entirely with the Government. When it finally reached the House of Lords in late 2022, they surprisingly rejected an entire tort provision that had been at the core of the legislation which would allow academics to turn to civil courts as a last resort if they had, for example, lost a job or an important research grant as a result of exercising their free expression.
The Lords – a significant number of University Vice-Chancellors and Principles within their ranks – turfed that provision out completely, sending the Bill ricocheting in a “ping pong” between the two houses. The outcome was a watered-down compromise and a significant delay to the long-promised piece of legislation.
The Government isn’t responsible for that delay. But we do know that the government has the ability to drive legislation through if it is a real priority to them. Multiple controversial public order bills have made it through the system within months of each other, bolstering police powers. Where there is a will, there is a way.
Perhaps even more surprising is what those favoured bills, rammed through at top speed, reveal about the true priorities of the Conservative government. Bills in this twilight era of Tory power have skewed horrendously towards censorship.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Act 2022 empowers officers to arrest anyone who they deem to be causing “serious annoyance” on a public street, perhaps because they’re talking about an uncomfortable societal topic like gender recognition reform, or preaching from the Bible.
The Public Order Act, following only months later, brought street censorship into a new realm – policing silent thought. Clause 11, following Royal Assent, could criminalise those who pray even silently in their minds on a public street, if stood within 150m of an abortion facility. Freedom of expression is now facing a clampdown in the privacy of one’s own head.
Throughout this government’s time at the top, free speech platitudes have, of course, been scattered rife; the “Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati” have been suitably chastised. Yet on the Government’s report card, as far as truly protecting free speech, the failing grades don’t match the rhetorical flourish.
Talk is cheap. But free speech protection requires prioritization and commitment. It’s good that the Free Speech (Higher Education) Bill, having stumbled through parliament, is now on the last tired lap on its way to becoming law. Let’s hope that this rocky start to protecting free speech on campus is just the first step in renewing a government commitment to free expression – however long the Tories have left in power.
Lois McLatchie is the Communications Officer for ADF UK, a legal advocacy organization that promotes freedom of speech.
University terms are winding down for exams. Another term passes with no long-awaited protections of free speech in law.
Campuses have, for some time, been a hot spot of the culture wars. One in four students don’t share their opinions at university because they clash with those promoted by their institution. From the railing protests in Sussex against gender-critical feminists like Kathleen Stock, to the irony of cancelling Claire Fox’s presentation on “the importance of debate” at Royal Holloway: headlines seem to break every few months detailing the terror of the student hive mind at any form of challenging thought.
The ground has long been ripe for an easy Tory win from championing free speech on campus, proving their credentials as supporters of liberalism, and appealing to the common-sense of voters. A bill was introduced in the 2021 Queen’s Speech that introduced a bold approach to restoring academic freedom and meaningful debate at universities.
Boris Johnson’s government would, for the first time, require Students’ Unions to take “reasonably practicable steps” to secure lawful freedom of speech for members and visiting speakers. Academics, students, or guest presenters would be empowered to seek compensation through the courts if they suffered a loss from a breach of the free speech duties under the proposed legislation.
Furthermore, a new Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom at the Office for Students would be created, with powers to investigate infringements of freedom of speech on university campuses. Yet Masters students who were facing the free speech freeze when this bill was introduced will be long-graduated by the time any of this change can be implemented. Why has the bill been allowed to languish for so long?
The fault does not lie entirely with the Government. When it finally reached the House of Lords in late 2022, they surprisingly rejected an entire tort provision that had been at the core of the legislation which would allow academics to turn to civil courts as a last resort if they had, for example, lost a job or an important research grant as a result of exercising their free expression.
The Lords – a significant number of University Vice-Chancellors and Principles within their ranks – turfed that provision out completely, sending the Bill ricocheting in a “ping pong” between the two houses. The outcome was a watered-down compromise and a significant delay to the long-promised piece of legislation.
The Government isn’t responsible for that delay. But we do know that the government has the ability to drive legislation through if it is a real priority to them. Multiple controversial public order bills have made it through the system within months of each other, bolstering police powers. Where there is a will, there is a way.
Perhaps even more surprising is what those favoured bills, rammed through at top speed, reveal about the true priorities of the Conservative government. Bills in this twilight era of Tory power have skewed horrendously towards censorship.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Act 2022 empowers officers to arrest anyone who they deem to be causing “serious annoyance” on a public street, perhaps because they’re talking about an uncomfortable societal topic like gender recognition reform, or preaching from the Bible.
The Public Order Act, following only months later, brought street censorship into a new realm – policing silent thought. Clause 11, following Royal Assent, could criminalise those who pray even silently in their minds on a public street, if stood within 150m of an abortion facility. Freedom of expression is now facing a clampdown in the privacy of one’s own head.
Throughout this government’s time at the top, free speech platitudes have, of course, been scattered rife; the “Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati” have been suitably chastised. Yet on the Government’s report card, as far as truly protecting free speech, the failing grades don’t match the rhetorical flourish.
Talk is cheap. But free speech protection requires prioritization and commitment. It’s good that the Free Speech (Higher Education) Bill, having stumbled through parliament, is now on the last tired lap on its way to becoming law. Let’s hope that this rocky start to protecting free speech on campus is just the first step in renewing a government commitment to free expression – however long the Tories have left in power.