On 4th July, in the UK general election, Keir Starmer’s Labour Party won a huge parliamentary majority, ending 14 years of Conservative government. So, what will Britain’s new government mean for academic freedom?
As we pointed out in our “election day” report on 30 June, Labour’s manifesto makes no explicit mention of academic freedom or freedom of speech (except for a promise to extend parliamentary free speech protections to devolved legislatures), although it does state that Labour will introduce reforms to higher education; see here for further details. Moreover, the previous government’s Freedom of Speech Act, which CAF believes is likely to offer significant protection for academic freedom, is due to come into force on 1 August despite the change of government.
Nonetheless, Labour’s stated policies do raise significant concerns for academic freedom. For example, the Labour manifesto states that Labour “will protect LGBT+ and disabled people by making all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence.” Similarly, the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, has previously promised that a Labour government will make misogyny a “hate crime.”
While all acts of violence, abuse or harassment, including those motivated by hatred towards certain groups, must be condemned and criminalised, the government must not pass any law likely to be used to criminalise the expression of controversial opinions. Since many will claim that certain opinions – such as the view that trans women are not women and should be denied access to female-only spaces – are motivated by “hate,” such a law would risk the arrest and prosecution of citizens, including students and academics, on the basis of unprovable claims about their motives.
Also of concern is the possibility that Labour will introduce hate crime legislation modelled on the Scottish Hate Crime and Public Order Act, which came into force on 1 April 2024. The act makes it an offence to behave in a way that is “insulting” if it is likely that this behaviour will result in “hatred being stirred up”. No intention to stir up hatred is necessary. It has led to a surge in the recording of “non-crime hate incidents”. Records of non-crime hate incidents can appear on enhanced DBS checks, which are required for some jobs including teachers and carers. CAF believes the law has had a significant chilling effect on freedom of speech in Scotland.
Anas Sarwar, leader of the Scottish Labour Party, supported and voted in favour of the Act, as did a majority of Labour members of the Scottish parliament. However, Pat McFadden, a senior Labour cabinet minister has stated that the government will not introduce UK-wide legislation modelled on Scottish act. It is of paramount importance that the Labour government does not introduce such legislation.
CAF is also concerned about Labour’s adoption of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. As previously reported by CAF, both definitions risk the penalisation of controversial opinions – such as the view that the tenets of Islam are incompatible with Western civilisation, or that Zionism is a racist ideology – through subjective and unprovable claims that such opinions are motivated by anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic bigotry.
So far, 119 UK universities have adopted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, while 21 have adopted the APPG definition of Islamophobia, enabling formal complaints to be made against academics for expressing allegedly anti-Semitic or Islamophobic views. According to a report published last year, 38 UK academics have been falsely accused of anti-Semitism under the IHRA definition. Moreover, in October 2020, the Conservative Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson, ordered universities to adopt the IHRA definition and threatened to cut funding to universities that did not comply, in a clear violation of academic freedom. Labour must not repeat this policy.
Students and academics should be free to debate topics such as Islam, Judaism, Zionism, Israel and Palestine – as well as sex, disability, sexuality and gender identity – without being subjected to disciplinary proceedings based on subjective and unprovable accusations of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, transphobia, misogyny, and other forms of hatred. The Labour government’s policies should make a clear distinction between opinions – all of which should be allowed in an academic environment, regardless of how hateful some may deem them to be – and acts of violence, abuse or harassment, which should not be tolerated in academia or any other sphere of life.
The Labour Party pledged in its manifesto to ban conversion therapy, that is, the practice of attempting to change a person’s sexuality or self-ascribed gender identity through “talking” and other types of therapy. CAF believes that any such ban will have to be constructed very carefully so that it does not outlaw the expression of conservative views relating to sexuality, or gender critical views.
The Labour Party also pledged in its manifesto to “build on the Online Safety Act” and to “explore further measures to keep everyone safe online”. The Online Safety Act 2023 places duties on companies to prevent illegal speech on their online platforms – this includes, for instance, child sexual abuse and fraud. It is noteworthy, however, that earlier drafts of the Act required companies to censor “legal but harmful” speech. If the Labour government “builds on” the Act, it must not do so by censoring legal speech.
The new Secretary of State for Education is Bridget Phillipson. She is, in principle, supportive of freedom of speech. She has told the Independent that “vigorous debate and open debate in our universities is really important. Of course it mustn’t cross a line where it comes to violence or intimidation or abuse.” It is encouraging that Phillipson chose to draw the line at “intimidation or abuse” rather than “harmful” speech – a term commonly used by proponents of censorship to refer to speech which merely offends or upsets. In a speech to Universities UK, the principal representative body for UK universities, Phillipson stated that “we want our country to be… tolerant”. Again, it is encouraging that Phillipson chose to speak in support of tolerance. There have been campaigns in universities to supplant tolerance as a virtue and as an institutional requirement with “respect”. Respect, when enforced, is simply intolerance.
However, despite these promising signs, it seems that Phillipson doesn’t take the threat to academic freedom seriously. In the same Independent article, she claimed that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act was simply an attempt to distract attention from the then Conservative government’s failures, while in the above quoted speech to Universities UK she lists ten “difficult issues” facing universities while making no mention of academic freedom. Phillipson’s views may be similar to those of other Labour MPs, who repeatedly argued, during the passage of the Freedom of Speech Act, that there was “no evidence” of a free speech crisis in the universities.
One of the main tasks for supporters of academic freedom in the coming years will be to convince the Labour government that the problem in the universities is real and serious – and that it affects the left as well as the right.