The election for the next Chancellor of Oxford University opens on 28 October. Alumni for Free Speech (AFFS) has sent a detailed questionnaire to all 15 candidates, asking them about their position on free speech at UK universities.
Their answers provide an instructive guide for any Oxford graduate concerned about the protection of academic freedom. We have gone over the candidates’ answers and created a free speech profile for each of them.
Four candidates did not respond to the AFFS questionnaire. Seven of the remaining candidates ignored the fixed list of questions, providing their own statements (of varying lengths and detail) instead. Below, we cover the answers and/or statements of every candidate who responded to AFFS’ inquiry. As for the rest, we must assume either that they did not get the message or that they do not consider the topic of free speech important enough to warrant a response.
Lady Elish Angiolini
Elish Angiolini is a Pro Vice Chancellor of Oxford, Principal of St. Hugh’s College, and the first woman to hold the office of Lord Clerk Register since its creation in the 13th century. Angiolini responded to AFFS’ questionnaire with only a very brief statement, covering barely any of the major points, yet this does allow her the privilege of being the only candidate to be quoted in full:
“Freedom of speech is a fundamental and precious element of any modern democratic society and must be supported in Universities. Speech can however be abused to cause real harm, for example, re Nazi propaganda and threats of physical assault. It is therefore a freedom that must be exercised responsibly.”
In short, Lady Angiolini supports legal but not illegal speech. What she thinks about HEFOSA, EDI programmes, the current state of academic freedom, institutional neutrality, and a host of other issues covered in the AFFS questionnaire remains a mystery.
Major-General Alastair Bruce of Crionaich
Major-General Bruce responded to the AFFS questionnaire with a short statement written with soldierly aplomb:
“When the Bishop was asked what he thought about ‘sin’, he replied with simple conviction that he was against it.
When I am asked what I think about ‘free speech’, after nearly 46 years of service, as a soldier, defending it with my life (in the spirit of Voltaire), I can reply with equal conviction, I am for it.”
After a few more such spirited remarks, the Major-General concludes with an apology “for being slightly behind the curve”.
Margaret Casely-Hayford
A prominent lawyer and businesswoman, Margaret Casely-Hayford is perhaps best known for her work on increasing diversity on corporate boards. Rather than answer the questionnaire directly, Casely-Hayford submitted a statement to AFFS addressing most of the relevant points.
Casely-Hayford considers free speech a vital part of university life. She writes that it is “conductive to learning that one listens to, analyses and where necessary, responds to or challenges the position of others, in debate or contention.” The only limitations on free speech which she acknowledges are those “described in law.”
Turning to HEFOSA, she writes that she did not “contribute, support, or oppose” the Act, but that she supports the current delay. Here, Casely-Hayford provides two reasons. First, it is a complicated law and it is paramount to consider any potential unintended consequences. Second, the Office for Students needed more time to update their regulatory framework. She does not appear to oppose the contents of HEFOSA but only a hurried commencement of it.
The main weakness of Casely-Hayford’s statement is that she seems unsure whether academic freedom really requires additional protection. The very first question on the AFFS questionnaire, asking whether there is a free speech problem on UK campuses, is never addressed in her statement. This suggests that Casely-Hayford either does not know about the ongoing threats to academic freedom or does not consider them to be of any real concern.
While Margaret Casely-Hayford affirms the need for UK universities to protect freedom of speech, she does not appreciate the fact that they have in many cases failed to do so. This makes it unlikely that she would be a strong protector of free speech if elected as Chancellor. It is hard to fix a problem if you do not acknowledge its existence.
Reverend Matthew Firth
Formerly a priest at St Cuthbert’s in Darlington, Matthew Firth describes himself as a “the only true free speech candidate” in the election for the Oxford Chancellorship. The Reverend took the time to answer the entire AFFS questionnaire, in places in great detail.
Firth responds to almost every question with a strong, unambiguous statement in favour of free speech, at one point describing it as “a human right which is a prerequisite for a civilised democratic society”. He supports protections for offensive but legal speech, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, and the appointment of a senior university officer to promote free speech. The only point at which he shows a hint of wavering is on the matter of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion, or EDI.
While Firth correctly points out that the promotion of EDI policies is sometimes in conflict with free speech, he goes on to add that “it should be a requirement that all university staff are only recruited on the basis that they are supporters and champions of free speech and free academic enquiry.”
This sentence can be interpreted in two ways. First, as support for viewpoint neutrality when hiring, in all matters except for free speech. Second, as something akin to a screening test for new candidates, ensuring that they hold the ‘correct’ attitudes towards free speech. This clearly risks tipping over into another kind of discrimination.
In general, Matthew Firth provides answers that are strongly in favour of academic freedom and free speech more broadly. How best to interpret the aforementioned sentence may be left to individual voters.
Lord Hague of Richmond
William Hague is a former leader of the Conservative Party, former Foreign Secretary under David Cameron, and a current member of the House of Lords. Rather than answer the questionnaire directly, Lord Hague submitted a detailed statement to AFFS, which addressed the content of every question.
In his statement, Hague argues that ‘cancel culture’ benefits no one, and that universities should be a place “of open debate […] based on learning from the arguments of others.” He describes himself as a career-long champion of free speech both in Parliament and as Foreign Secretary. Although he was unable to vote for it at the time, Lord Hague makes it clear that he supports HEFOSA.
Hague unambiguously endorses institutional neutrality at British universities, arguing that it is “necessary for the protection of free speech and academic freedom”. He adds that he does not support discrimination against offensive views, but rather believes that “[e]xtremism and prejudice should be countered through the rigor of reason, not the comfort blanket of cancellation.”
While Hague supports efforts to help disadvantaged students get into Oxford, he also recognises that some EDI policies go too far in requiring proof of support for certain programmes during job or grant applications. He supports the idea of a senior officer for free speech, but believes that “real change is only delivered when it is driven from the very top of an organisation.”
In the final paragraph of his statement, Lord Hague vows to protect free speech and academic freedom at Oxford if he is elected. He seems to have a genuine belief in these principles, and a clear understanding of their importance. As he writes, “Oxford minds should be ready for the great debating chamber of the world, not the echo chambers of the like-minded.”
Professor Simon Kay
A renowned plastic surgeon – think reconstructive, not Kardashian – Professor Simon Kay has been president of two surgical speciality organisations, a professor at the University of Leeds, and was responsible for the first successful hand transplant in the UK. Kay responded to the AFFS questionnaire and provided answers to every question.
Keeping most responses fairly short, Professor Kay confirmed that all legal speech should be protected, even if offensive or unpopular, and that UK universities should pursue institutional neutrality in order to protect academic freedom. He takes a nuanced view on the suspension of HEFOSA, stating that while he does not like the decision, he does not know the full reasoning behind it.
On the question of EDI, Professor Kay stresses that while these programmes do a lot of good, they are sometimes subverted, leading to “inappropriate control or tendentious or factional influence.” He believes that some diversity programme, such as quotas, can sometimes “advance equitability”, but that any such requirement should be “open and acknowledged.”
Professor Kay writes that he has no opinion on the idea of having a senior officer for free speech. Although he appears to be a genuine believer in free speech, he also seems to have lost hope in his own campaign. The last line of his response to the questionnaire is: “It has become clear that I am not likely to be elected! […] I have no political organisation, no university apparatus and no public relations company behind me.”
Onyeka Nwelue
Onyeka Nwelue is an author, musician, and filmmaker, who has produced works of fiction, poetry, and non-fiction. He provided long, in-depth answers to AFFS’ questionnaire, most of which were strongly in favour of free speech and academic freedom.
In his answers, Nwelue forcefully criticises the state of free speech at UK universities and in the country more broadly. He writes that he “would go so far as to say that British society should be extremely cautious in the way it comes to characterise any form of speech as “illegal””.
Nwelue supports British universities adopting a policy of institutional neutrality, and contends that they should facilitate “an environment of intellectual diversity where the authorities do not wilfully promote the dominance or pre-eminence of viewpoints”. However, he does not consider it necessary to appoint a senior officer for this purpose, but instead proposes setting up a new body to handle this responsibility.
Nwelue is an “interesting” character. His Wikipedia entry may shed some light on his possible motivations for entering the Chancellorship election. We leave readers to draw their own conclusions.
Maxim Parr-Reid
Perhaps the candidate with the least established public profile, Maxim Parr-Reid runs a small tutoring company and has previously featured on University Challenge for Trinity College, Oxford. Now, he seeks to become chancellor of the university from which he graduated with master’s degree a mere five years ago.
In his response, Parr-Reid highlights some past cancellations at Oxford, including the attempted disinvitation of Steve Bannon to the Oxford Union. He asserts that he proudly voted to uphold the invite “because people like that should be challenged at the Union”. Although he stresses that he is not a “free speech absolutist”, it seems that his only limiting principle is the law.
On the question of institutional neutrality, Parr-Reid argues that since universities receive tax-payer money, they should be held to the same standards of neutrality as “licence-focused broadcast media.” He does not elaborate on whether this should be a mere expectation from the public or a legal requirement.
However, Parr-Reid also states that “universities should be left to self-regulate and any intervention should be considered as a last resort.” For this reason, he also does not want to appoint a senior officer to promote free speech on campus, although it is not clear why such an appointment would constitute an intervention, unless mandated by law.
While Parr-Reid thinks people should be free to criticise EDI programmes, he also believes that many of these programmes promote free speech by “giving historically underrepresented groups a seat at the table.” He goes on to say that “allyship is important, but it shouldn’t be mandatory, if it is to be seen as legitimate and productive.”
All in all, it seems that while Maxim Parr-Reid has an appreciation of free speech and academic freedom, certain areas of his thinking are somewhat unfocused. It is far from obvious that he would make an effective defender of free speech.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Janet Royall, Baroness of Blaisdon, is Principal of Somerville College and a current member of the House of Lords. Like several of the other candidates, Royall did not answer the questionnaire directly but submitted a statement addressing the main points instead.
Royall believes that academic freedom is currently “strongly protected” at Oxford, but acknowledges that some people “may be anxious that their views are unpopular or insufficiently considered.” She is therefore leading an Oxford initiative to host conversations on “difficult and controversial topics”.
As a member of parliament, Royall actively opposed the Freedom of Speech Act, and although she does not mention its current suspension in her statement, it is safe to assume she supports it. She claims to have opposed the Act because she was worried “it would have had the very opposite effect to that which was intended”.
Finally, Baroness Royall defends EDI programmes, claiming that they do not threaten free speech but rather help to “develop a free, plural, tolerant society.” This is very much in line with her record as Principal at Somerville, where she not only required all new students to undertake “unconscious bias” training but insisted that they repeat it until they scored 100% . She afterwards withdrew this latter requirement following criticism from the Free Speech Union, saying “on reflection, it has been agreed that completing the test with less than 100% will be seen as the opportunity for a chat about the issues involved, nothing more.” For details see here.
All of this suggests that Baroness Royall’s commitment to academic freedom is essentially pro forma. She remains unaware of the contradictions between EDI and freedom of speech. She is unlikely to be a reliable protector of free speech at Oxford if elected.
Harry Stratton
Harry Stratton is a practicing lawyer with a keen interest in university law. He describes himself as “the only left-wing candidate” in the election for the Chancellorship. Stratton did not answer AFFS’ questionnaire but instead provided a short statement.
Stratton highlights his “record of fighting against restrictions on the right to protest.” He notes that he “stood on picket lines” campaigning for fair pay and conditions. Moreover, he insists that he would not have closed “peaceful encampments” nor evicted “student occupations” because the “contest of ideas is at the heart of what a university should be about.”
Stratton’s statement does not address any other parts of the questionnaire, including those relating to HEFOSA, EDI, the appointment of a senior officer to promote free speech, or the need to protect legal speech even if it is offensive or unpopular. This makes it hard to assess how he would act on matters of academic freedom as chancellor.
Lord Willets
David Willets is a former Minister for Universities and Science under David Cameron, as well as former Paymaster General under John Major. While he did not directly answer AFFS’ questions, he provided a detailed statement instead.
While Willets supported HEFOSA, he remains concerned that the inclusion of civil litigation (i.e. the Statutory Tort scheme) might create perverse incentives and eventually lead to fewer controversial speakers being invited to speak. Lord Willets emphasises the specific role of Oxford in protecting academic freedom, both through its “rich diversity of institutions” and its history of opposing government control.
It is clear from his statement that Lord Willets is a firm believer in academic freedom and free speech. The only weakness in his response to AFFS is that there is no mention of potential conflict between EDI programmes and freedom of speech. However, given his record, it is fair to assume that he would take a largely pro-free speech approach to these matters.
Others
The candidates who did not respond to the questionnaire are Dominic Grieve, Imran Khan, Ankur Shiv Bhandari, and Lord Mandelson.