It has been less than two months since key provisions of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act came into effect on 1 August. Yet examples of universities that remain in likely noncompliance are starting to pile up. The Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) has already published stories about potential violations at Durham University, the University of Westminster and at King’s College London. Most recently, attention has turned to the University of Nottingham (UoN), which appears to have committed multiple breaches of free speech protections.
The examples range from a requirement in a job advert to “be keen on championing” EDI to a transgender guide for staff that lists “refusing to address the person using their correct pronoun” as an example of “unlawful discrimination”. Modern universities are large, slow-moving bureaucracies and some lapses in compliance are bound to result from inertia rather than intent. But astonishingly, several of the problematic policies at UoN were created or updated within the last year – well after the passage of the new protections.
This is perhaps not so surprising, considering that the institution was an early mover in the effort to push academia in a more equitable direction. Even before the wave of activism following the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, UoN, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, had established a “decolonisation” research group to create a “coherent methodology” for “mainstreaming perspectives that are not the traditional white, European, middle class, male approaches”.
This group, operating under the mellifluous name All in! Regularising ethnic presence in the curriculum, produced a jargon-laden report encouraging the exploration of such topics as: “How the subject of equality, diversity and inclusion is integrated into the whole teaching programmes not just as an add-on, in discrete modules only or, towards the end of a module or a programme” and “How white normativity can be managed more effectively to enable a greater sense of belonging to be nurtured for racially minoritised groups in classrooms and beyond”.
Despite the lack of any concrete findings, the report nonetheless inspired change in several departments at the UoN. In English studies, module convenors must now ask themselves whether reading lists are “sufficiently diverse”. If not, they should consider setting “an immediate target of doubling that number [of authors of colour] ahead of the next academic year”. But diversifying the curriculum is, of course, not enough to truly decolonise it. Academics are also reminded to be wary of the “Western conceptualisations of society [that] have dominated theorisation in all areas of our teaching”.
To combat this supposed Western stranglehold on theory, teachers are urged to “take the opportunity to challenge students’ unconscious biases” to prevent their young, vulnerable minds from “privileging white authors, glorifying Britain’s colonial history, or evaluating non-white cultures negatively”. These, apparently, are all transgressions that university students in the 2020s are prone to committing.
As so often, this sort of radicalism appears to be championed by a small but very loud faction within the university, while the majority of staff remain quiescent. As the All in! research group concludes, somewhat disappointedly: “The study reveals that only a minority of staff are willing to decolonise the curriculum. Staff in some Faculties do not think that EDI applies to them or are reluctant to think through the colonial dimensions to their work.”
To overcome this resistance, the authors of the report suggested an “official institutional stand from UoN in support of the decolonisation of the curriculum as an integral part of the values of the University”, alongside “enhanced induction programmes for staff and students”. UoN appears to have taken these suggestions to heart.
For instance, an advert for a teaching associate in Musicology, posted on 19 August, required that the successful candidate will “be keen on championing and promoting Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion initiatives”. In other words, UoN appears to be screening out precisely those staff who, in the words of its own decolonisation report, “do not think that EDI applies to them”. CAF recently ran an article examining how a similar advert from King’s College London very likely breached the regulatory expectations laid out in the latest OfS guidance – suggesting that Nottingham’s case is not an isolated one.
Nor is it only new recruits who are being screened. A document titled “Guidance for completing the Academic Promotion Application Form”, which was last amended in March 2025, describes a section of promotion applications called “Activities in support of advancing our Equality, Diversity and Inclusion work”. This appears under the heading “Core expectations”, and instructs applicants to demonstrate “how you have supported the advancement of equality, diversity and inclusion within your practice”.
Another document, “Academic Promotion Criteria”, last updated in April 2025, provides examples of how to meet this “core expectation”, including “active promotion and incorporation of the university’s equality, diversity and inclusion agenda” and “exemplary commitment to the advancement of the university’s [EDI] agenda”. Here, UoN is explicitly asking applicants for promotion to evidence their support for a particular viewpoint – something clearly prohibited by the OfS’s new regulatory advice.
This insistence on conformity extends beyond EDI. The university’s “Supporting Transgender Staff” guidance, last updated in November 2024, appears to adopt an official position on several contested issues. It opens with an explanation of the difference between “legal sex” and “gender”, treating this as uncontroversial. The document also refers repeatedly to a person’s “correct pronouns”, adding that “the correct ones are always what the person advises”.
Consider the definition of gender critical beliefs offered by the Sullivan Review: “Biological sex is real, important, immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity”. UoN’s guidance implies that it is officially opposed to such beliefs. Acting in accordance with them could expose staff to disciplinary action.
For instance, “refusing to use a person’s correct pronoun or name” is listed as an example of “unlawful discrimination” that will be regarded as “harassment”. The same document provides a litany of examples of “transphobic language”, including “ignoring someone’s chosen pronoun” because this “undermines their gender identity” and “questioning or restricting the use of facilities e.g. toilets or changing rooms” by asking “you know this is a women’s bathroom?”
In case anyone should doubt that this amounts to an official institutional position, the section of the document entitled “Managing the reactions of colleagues/others” advises managers to respond to any “lack of awareness of gender identity” by “reiterating the institution’s commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion, and its policy on dignity”. Where troublesome dissenters remain, the guidance recommends additional training co-organised with “a trans organisation”, such as Beyond the Binary, the Nonbinary Inclusion Project, and, of course, Stonewall.
Taken together, these examples indicate that UoN is not committed to supporting the academic freedom of staff who dissent from prevailing orthodoxy on decolonisation, EDI, or gender identity. More importantly, they suggest that Nottingham is either unaware of its legal obligations under the new free speech regime, or is willing to disregard them in pursuit of ideological goals. In either case, the situation points to the need for robust regulatory enforcement.