Labour to revive controversial university freedom of speech legislation

Key Takeaways:

• The UK government intends to revive university free speech legislation with revisions.
• A contentious clause allowing legal claims against universities is likely to be removed.
• The original legislation was paused due to concerns it could protect hate speech.
• Critics feared the law might enable extremists to sue universities if barred from speaking.
• Education leaders and student groups have called for revisions to prevent legal and bureaucratic burdens.

Government Moves to Relaunch Free Speech Legislation in Universities

The UK government is set to revive legislation aimed at protecting free speech on university campuses in England, with plans to remove a contentious clause that would have allowed individuals to seek compensation through legal claims. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, initially passed in 2023 under the Conservative government, had been paused due to concerns that it might inadvertently protect hate speech and impose heavy legal and bureaucratic burdens on universities and student unions.

Controversial Clause Under Review

Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, had suspended the implementation of the act shortly after last year’s general election. Phillipson cited apprehensions that the law could expose students to harm and “appalling hate speech” while making institutions vulnerable to costly legal actions. “The legislation as it stood was not fit for purpose,” she stated at the time.

Critics of the original act feared that it could empower individuals espousing extremist views, such as Holocaust deniers, to sue universities if they were prevented from speaking on campuses. The Union of Jewish Students and other groups publicly opposed the law, with one critic labeling it an “antisemite charter.”

Adjustments to Make the Law Workable

A government source confirmed that the legislation would be relaunched, emphasizing the need to make it “workable.” The contentious “statutory tort” provision—which would have allowed staff, students, and visiting speakers to seek compensation through the courts for alleged breaches of free speech duties—is expected to be removed. Instead, an alternative complaints process overseen by the Office for Students (OfS), the higher education watchdog for England, may be implemented.

Jacqui Smith, the higher education minister, acknowledged the concerns in a recent letter, stating: “There is a real concern within higher education that the act is disproportionate, burdensome, and damaging to the welfare of students, and that it would lead to costly legal action.”

Mixed Responses from Political Figures

Laura Trott, the shadow education secretary, welcomed the government’s decision to reconsider the implementation. “I am glad the government has U-turned over implementing the law,” Trott said. However, she added, “For this bill to have teeth, it must have the statutory tort included,” indicating a desire for the legislation to retain mechanisms that hold institutions accountable.

Government sources suggested that while the statutory tort may be removed, the commitment to upholding free speech remains strong. One source noted that “academic freedom mattered more than students not being offended.”

Universities Call for Practical Solutions

Educational leaders have expressed the need for revisions to ensure the act supports free speech without creating undue burdens. Vivienne Stern, chief executive of Universities UK—which represents vice-chancellors—highlighted the challenges on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “There are things in this act that are going to gum up the works within universities,” Stern said. “It would make it very difficult for universities to discharge their legal obligations in relation to freedom of speech and other legal obligations, for example, in relation to harassment and hate speech.”

Professor Shitij Kapur, president of King’s College London and chair of a Universities UK advisory group on freedom of speech, echoed these sentiments in an article for The Telegraph. “Bringing the tort into being would open the door to any number of claims, from the frivolous to those of malicious and hateful intent,” Kapur wrote. “Our institutions are already struggling financially, and the claims this tort could enable would require additional dedicated teams of legal professionals and admin staff to address.”

Balancing Free Speech and Protection

The debate over the legislation centers on finding the balance between safeguarding free speech and protecting students from harm. Critics argue that without careful adjustment, the law could hinder rather than help open discourse on campuses. As the government prepares to relaunch the act with revisions, stakeholders from political, educational, and student communities continue to voice their perspectives on how best to achieve these objectives.