Under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, universities are required to publish a code of practice on freedom of speech. Such codes typically describe universities’ values and procedures relating to freedom of speech. They are authoritative bureaucratic documents which set out university policy and play a major role in determining university action relating to freedom of speech.
CAF has previously reported on the University of Cambridge’s new code, which we believe to be exemplary. By contrast, the new Oxford Code, approved by council on 8 July, is exceedingly poor. CAF has identified five major failings in it.
- Respect rather than tolerance
The Oxford code states that “as an integral part of [our] commitment to freedom of expression, we will take steps to ensure that all… exchanges [of views] happen… respectfully”. Academic freedom requires tolerance, not respect. Indeed, it requires the ability to say, civilly, that one does not respect a person’s work or ideas. Respect implies a positive esteem, whose absence toleration permits. Enforced respect is intolerance.
The Oxford code replaces tolerance with respect. With the exception of a statement that the university does not tolerate harassment, the word “tolerance” (and its adjectival and verbal forms) do not appear in the document. In the view of CAF, this is not accidental, but deliberate. There are organised campaigns to replace tolerance, as an institutional requirement and a virtue, with respect. In Oxford, such campaigns have clearly succeeded.
- Regulation of “time, place and manner”
The Oxford code states that “with appropriate regulation of the time, place and manner of events, members of our community should have no reasonable grounds to feel… censored”. It is not immediately clear why regulation of the time, place, and manner of events precludes censorship. In April 2023, Edinburgh University cancelled a screening of the film Adult Human Female, after protesters blocked access to the venue. In October 2023, Liverpool Hope University cancelled a talk by Professor Avi Shlaim, after a local Jewish group complained about Shlaim speaking because he is critical of Israel. In June 2024, Durham University cancelled a debate on Gaza, after “pro-Palestine” protesters blocked access to the venue. In all three cases, the universities offered to rearrange the event at a different time and place.
The Oxford code appears to formally institutionalise this policy of restricting when and where events can take place. But freedom of speech when it is convenient – when it is permitted by illiberal groups – is not freedom of speech. The answer to threats to freedom of speech is not restrictions on the time and place of speech, but protection of speech.
- Inclusion
The Oxford code states “The University is committed to fostering an inclusive culture”. Commitments to “inclusivity” have frequently been used by universities to restrict speech. In a recent interview with CAF, Almut Gadow, who was fired from the Open University for questioning the teaching of “gender ideology”, mentioned as a ground for dismissal that her actions were deemed contrary to the university’s aim of creating an “inclusive” environment. The University of Oxford does not have to refer to “inclusion” in its code. It could simply state, clearly, that it will not tolerate harassment or abuse. If inclusion is to be mentioned, then the code must state that the goal of “fostering an inclusive culture” does not permit either formal or informal restrictions on lawful speech.
- The Equality Act
The Oxford code also refers to the Equality Act 2010, which makes harassment – as legally defined – of certain protected groups illegal. A freedom of speech code should state that harassment will not be tolerated. However, universities have claimed that speech which could not possibly meet the legal bar constitutes harassment, in order to punish those who express dissident views. For an example, see CAF’s interview with Robert Ivinson. As the Office for Students explains, speech in academic contexts will not amount to unlawful harassment by virtue of the views it expresses except “in the most exceptional circumstances”. To prevent the misuse of university harassment procedures to censor speech, the Oxford code must state this. It does not.
- Institutional Neutrality
The Oxford code contains no commitment to institutional neutrality, nor does Oxford University commit itself elsewhere to not taking an official point of view on public affairs. When universities take official points of view, they transform themselves into political institutions from which dissenters can “legitimately” be hounded or expelled. A Harvard University internal report has recently recommended that the university should not “issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university’s core function”. The core function of the university is to ensure an environment where its members can “research, teach, and learn”. The Oxford code should include a similar commitment to institutional neutrality.
CAF believes that the University of Oxford’s code of practice on freedom of speech is an instructive example for other universities of what not to do.