A complaint has been lodged with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) over the appointment of a REF 2029 panel member who has publicly described gender-critical views as “a cult of cruelty and exclusion”, raising wider concerns about whether politically contested but lawful research can expect impartial treatment within the UK’s research assessment system.
Professor Jon Pike of the Open University has challenged the appointment of his colleague Professor Sophie Grace Chappell, an eminent philosopher and executive editor of The Philosophical Quarterly, arguing that her past public remarks about gender-critical feminism create at least the appearance of partiality in this area of research. Chappell is listed on the REF 2029 website as an assessment-phase member of Sub-panel 30: Philosophy.
Speaking to Times Higher Education, Pike said Chappell’s criticism of the OU’s Gender Critical Research Network (OUGCRN), which he co-founded in 2021, raised serious concerns about whether the panel would assess outputs on their merits, rather than through a political or ideological lens.
Referring to the OUGCRN, Chappell previously said: “Their position is a logical analogue of anti-semitism & of homophobia…We shd respond to them as respond to anti-semites and homophobes.”
“The GC view is,” she continued, “a tissue of mistakes, misconceptions & misunderstanding… combined with a willingness to stereotype, scaremonger, rumour-monger, demonise & interpret with a studied lack of charity.”
In another tweet, Chappell stated: “‘Gender critical’ is not a legitimate alternative viewpoint. It is not a reasonable option in the supermarket of ideas. It is a cult of cruelty and exclusion.”
More recently, Pike also pointed to Chappell’s reposting in November 2025 of a cartoon likening the introduction of gene screening by the International Olympic Committee to Nazi policy at the 1936 Berlin Olympics.
This is not simply a dispute between colleagues, nor a marginal question of academic taste. Gender-critical beliefs are capable of protection as philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010, following the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s judgment in Forstater v GCD Europe in 2021.Nor is this a fringe line of inquiry. Questions of sex, gender identity, law, language, sport and public policy are the subject of mainstream work across the humanities and social sciences.
As Pike put it: “My complaint poses a question to UKRI, for which, I think, we need a public answer: What degree of partiality rules someone out from being on a REF panel? If not this, what more?”
The REF is the UK’s system for assessing research quality in higher education through subject-based expert review, and its outcomes inform the allocation of around £2 billion a year in public funding. In England, mainstream QR funding is highly selective: 4* research (“world-leading”) is weighted four times more heavily than 3* research (“internationally excellent”), sharpening the incentives around what universities choose to submit.
Under REF 2029, universities submit units of assessment rather than fixed lists of named staff, and outputs are no longer tied to a submitted author. So while a panellist will not be marking down a particular academic’s work, sub-panels will still make qualitative judgments about outputs submitted within a wider portfolio, and those judgments will feed into both QR funding allocations and reputational outcomes.
The real risk lies further upstream, in the anticipatory logic this creates. Well before submission, universities begin shaping strategy: weighing which outputs, impact case studies and areas of work to include, and which may be more trouble than they are worth. Where a panel member has publicly treated one side of a lawful scholarly dispute as morally beyond the pale, senior administrators and departments may begin acting defensively, quietly steering clear of work they fear will be viewed unfavourably – with obvious implications for how that work, and those producing it, are valued within departments.
And that’s before we even consider the effect on gender-critical academics themselves, for many of whom institutional caution or hostility will not feel new. The government-commissioned review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender, led by Professor Alice Sullivan, recorded not merely isolated complaints but a broader chilling effect: gender-critical academics described moderating how they framed arguments, avoiding open discussion, narrowing what they were prepared to teach or research, and hesitating to pursue work touching on biological sex for fear of complaints, ostracism, managerial disapproval or damage to their careers.
Pike has now submitted a formal complaint to UK Research and Innovation, whose research council, Research England, manages the REF, arguing that Chappell’s appointment creates a conflict of interest that may undermine fair assessment. UKRI said any complaint would be considered “in line with procedure” and “handled in confidence”. Whether that will reassure sceptics is another matter.
As CAF has previously noted, UKRI’s own public-facing equality, diversity and inclusion material is unlikely to inspire confidence among critics of gender ideology. Its “Take PRIDE in research and innovation” project is described as supporting “the LGBTQ+ community both in our organisation and across the wider research and innovation sector”. One staff testimonial, from the chair of the UKRI Pride Network, recalls the 2018 incident in which “anti-trans lesbians stormed the front of London’s Pride march”, adding that there is “absolutely no place for transphobia at Pride”.
The “anti-trans lesbians” in question? Members of “Get the L Out”, a lawful gender-critical protest group opposing the erasure of lesbian identity by transgender activism.
This article forms part of the Committee for Academic Freedom’s monitoring of developments in UK higher education. To receive monthly updates and analysis on cases affecting academic freedom, click the link and subscribe to our newsletter.