Professor Steve Fothergill claims that his contract with Sheffield Hallam University was terminated because he published an article on the effect of foreign workers on English and Welsh labour markets. The University denies the allegation, saying that Fothergill’s contract was terminated along with others due to “financial” concerns.
Back in October, Professor Fothergill, an economist specialising in urban and regional development, published a paper examining the impact of migrant workers on the labour market in the former coalfields of England and Wales. Focusing on the ten-year period from 2011 to 2021, the paper found that “almost half the job growth [in the former coalfields] was filled by non-UK born workers”.
Now, Fothergill’s short-term, part-time contract with Sheffield Hallam University has not been renewed, and Fothergill has no doubt that his paper is the reason. Speaking to the Telegraph, he explained that shortly after the publication of the article, he was called into a meeting with the University’s Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR) and informed that the leadership was displeased with his work.
Fothergill was initially told that “there was an issue with the quality of the academic work”. He doubts, however, that this was the real reason for his university’s displeasure. “The paper is a very thorough evaluation of the numbers”, he told the Telegraph. “[L]eading professors, in Cambridge, Birmingham and Newcastle” had read it through and “[n]o one came back saying ‘Oh no Steve, you’ve got this wrong. They were all saying ‘Wow, this is rather shocking in terms of the numbers’”.
Indeed, according to internal emails, which Fothergill shared with the Telegraph, the director of CRESR Professor Ed Ferrari admitted that there was nothing to suggest that “the data are wrong or your conclusions cannot be substantiated”. However, he nevertheless asserted that the paper had not “been presented in a way that is sufficiently robust academically to substantiate the policy conclusions it draws and the language it used to propose them”.
Ferrari went on to say that the paper was “at best a little careless and at worst will be seen as offensive or inflammatory”, adding that parts came across as “jingoistic”.
Fothergill denies these characterisations, saying that he “made sure that it was an objective, numbers-driven economic analysis”, and that it was not “about race or culture”. The study is primarily concerned with bringing the “economically inactive” back into the workforce. Although it assumes that this is to be preferred to filling gaps in the workforce with migrant workers, its judgements are hardly “jingoistic”.
At the end of the paper, Fothergill and his co-author Tony Core offer five policy recommendations: (1) National, devolved, and local government must “sustain their efforts to regenerate less prosperous local economies”; (2) “The Home Office needs to restrict migration to lower levels that are compatible with bringing more unemployed and economically inactive residents into employment”; (3) The Government must “ensure that employers provide fair terms and conditions to staff”; (4) “The Department of Education [should] beef-up training, especially to fill the gaps for apprentice-level skills”; (5) The Government must “step up its efforts to bring back more of the economically inactive into the workforce”.
Regardless of whether one agrees with these recommendations, they can hardly be considered “offensive or inflammatory” or to constitute good reason to terminate the author’s contract. However, according to Fothergill, Sheffield Hallam is “a very liberal university” and “didn’t want these things being said”.
“Political correctness is beginning to override academic integrity” Fothergill said, adding that “other academics I know are really quite shocked by this behaviour”. While Fothergill says he does not “want to be the centre of a news story”, he acknowledged that he had “to be brave and put my head above the parapet here”.
This is an admirable sentiment, and we hope that more academics will follow Fothergill’s example. When exposed to pressure or disciplinary actions over one’s academic work or personal views, it is natural to want to keep one’s head down and hope for the storm to pass. However, if things are going to change, it will be because stories such as Fothergill’s are brought to light, so that the actions of universities like Sheffield Hallam can be criticised.
A spokesperson for the University said that “Professor Steve Fothergill is not employed by Sheffield Hallam University, he has been seconded to the University for one day per week on an external contract from another employer”. The person went on the explain that the “contract is due to end earlier than planned in January 2025”, adding that this was due to “financial pressures”.
Perhaps this is true. However, the fact that Fothergill’s contract had (according to him) been renewed consistently since 1992, and that it was terminated only after he was accused by the university leadership of “inflammatory” and “jingoistic” language, strongly suggests that other motives were in play. In any case, it is not the job of universities to censor their staff over their views on immigration policy. Sheffield Hallam University has failed in its duties as an institution of higher education. We urge it to do better in the future.