In a welcome win for CAF, the House of Commons Library has agreed to amend its briefing Freedom of Speech in Universities following our formal letter raising concerns about how the campus free-speech problem – and, in particular, self-censorship – was being framed.
In January 2026, CAF and our friends at Alumni for Free Speech wrote to the Library’s Managing Director of Research and Information, copying Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP (as Speaker and Chair of the House of Commons Commission), to raise concerns about the presentation and treatment of the Library’s October 2025 briefing and its accompanying landing-page summary.
Our argument was that aspects of the summary framing – and the inferences drawn from survey evidence – risked giving an unduly narrowed picture of the nature, drivers, and scale of self-censorship (and related constraints on lawful speech) in higher education. That matters because the Library’s own Editorial Policy commits it to “accuracy and impartiality” and, on politically controversial topics, to presenting “a variety of views and sources” so that MPs, peers and their staff can understand the range of opinion.
At root, the issue is methodological. The briefing relies heavily on the OfS-commissioned YouGov staff survey, yet the accompanying summary material frames self-censorship as affecting only “a minority” of academics, notwithstanding the finding that 21% of respondents felt “not very” or “not at all” free to discuss challenging or controversial topics in their teaching.
Whether one regards that as a “minority”, rather than, say, a significant proportion, the deeper problem is that while a representative survey can estimate a sector-wide average, it does not, by itself, show that the relevant pressures are evenly distributed across disciplines, subject areas, institutions or career stages. In other words, pooled averages can look reassuring – or at least less significant – while masking concentrated pockets of constraint in precisely the domains where controversies are most likely to arise.
The government-commissioned Sullivan Review on barriers to research on sex and gender illustrates this clustering problem. It did not attempt population-level prevalence estimates, but documented barriers within a single contested domain. Self-censorship and “chilling effects” were the most frequently reported barrier (58% of respondents), and the Review suggests these pressures can be socially reinforced within local working environments rather than arising solely from individual disposition.
The Library has now responded, thanking us for our “close and considered reading” and confirming that several changes will be made in the next update. In particular, the “minority of academics” line will be changed to “some academics”. Equally importantly, the section on academic staff and self-censorship “will also note that academics working in some contentious subject areas may feel more compelled to self-censor than others, highlighting submissions to the Sullivan Review”.
It’s a significant development, and we’re grateful to the Library for its careful response.
Although the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act has been partially commenced, key elements remain unfinished and therefore politically revisable. Most notably, the statutory OfS complaints scheme remains subject to proposed amendment, with the Department for Education stating in June 2025 that it would “seek a legislative vehicle at the earliest opportunity” to implement changes. Alas, no such vehicle has yet been identified – which means the way the Commons Library frames the evidence can materially shape how MPs and others assess both the nature of the problem and the urgency and design of the remaining elements of the regime, including the complaints scheme.
This is the kind of behind-the-scenes work CAF exists to do. If you’d like to help us continue making careful, evidence-led interventions of this kind, please consider making a donation.