CAF has submitted a briefing to ministers and opposition education spokespeople across the four main UK-wide parties – Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Reform UK – setting out why the recent R (University of Sussex) v Office for Students judgment should not be treated as a reason to delay, dilute or abandon the new university free speech complaints scheme.
At the heart of the briefing is a simple argument: the judgment exposed the limits of the old regulatory framework, rather than undermining the case for the new one.
The intervention comes amid mounting attempts within parts of the higher education sector to use the High Court ruling as a basis for arguing against commencement of key enforcement provisions in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 (HEFSA).
In April, before the judgment was handed down, the Department for Education announced plans to commence the OfS-administered complaints scheme in September 2026, alongside strengthened registration conditions backed by enforcement powers from April 2027.
Since then, however, University of Sussex Vice-Chancellor Professor Sasha Roseneil has used the judgment to argue that the OfS is a “failed regulator”, “not fit for purpose”, and that the ruling raises “important and urgent questions” about granting “ever more powers” to the OfS. Having said she stands ready to work with government on “better ways to regulate and support” universities, Professor Roseneil is reportedly seeking an urgent meeting with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson to discuss the judgment’s implications.
CAF’s briefing argues that these interpretations overstate the implications of the ruling, and that ministers and parliamentarians should also hear from organisations working directly on academic freedom and free speech casework across the sector.
As the briefing argues, the judgment primarily exposed the limits of the pre-HEFSA regulatory framework. Despite the Court’s ruling, the new complaints scheme remains capable of doing what neither the Sussex investigation nor employment tribunal claims under the Equality Act 2010 can: offering individuals a quick, low-stakes and free-to-use route to redress when their free speech or academic freedom rights are infringed.
Professor Roseneil has called for “better ways to regulate and support” universities. But the forthcoming OfS free speech complaints scheme and strengthened free speech conditions are precisely that. Instead of allowing senior leaders to mark their own homework in an atmosphere of backslapping bonhomie, they provide the regulator with exactly the tools Parliament intended to hold the sector to account when universities drift away from their role as places of open inquiry and robust intellectual disagreement.
CAF’s briefing also sets out a series of recent cases illustrating the kinds of disputes increasingly arising across the sector, many of which fall awkwardly, if at all, within existing legal routes such as employment tribunals under the Equality Act 2010.
The examples below underline why CAF believes a dedicated OfS free speech complaints scheme remains necessary despite the Sussex ruling:
- Peter Pormann, a professor of the history of language at the University of Manchester, was suspended after using the n-word in a disciplinary meeting to illustrate how linguistic meanings shift over time while defending a colleague’s context-specific use of language. The university investigated whether his remarks were “inappropriate, offensive and racist”, suspended him, barred him from campus, and described him to staff as a “potential risk to colleagues”.
- Professor David Gordon at the University of Bristol remains suspended after inviting the gender-critical UCL sociologist Professor Alice Sullivan to speak about how public bodies record sex and gender. The complaint followed a routine email he sent to the university’s LGBTQ+ staff network in response to objections about supposedly “harmful” gender-critical speech on campus.
- Martin Speake, a senior lecturer at Trinity Laban, resigned after a multi-year dispute triggered by his criticisms of Critical Race Theory in response to an institutional request for feedback on “anti-racism” policies. The institution distanced itself from him and suspended his teaching amid student backlash, after which his classes were boycotted and a petition accusing him of creating an “uncomfortable and distressing learning environment” was circulated.
- Professor Laura Murphy’s research into forced labour in Xinjiang at Sheffield Hallam was halted and her research group’s website taken down following pressure from Chinese state actors. Internal documents recorded senior administrators admitting that “attempting to retain the business in China and publication of the [Murphy’s] research are now untenable bedfellows”.
- At a Russell Group university, mandatory EDI training misrepresented the legal test for harassment under the Equality Act 2010, presenting it through the lens of subjective offence while omitting the statutory requirements to consider “the other circumstances of the case” and whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have the alleged effect. In its treatment of gender-critical belief, it suggested that such beliefs may be “held” but their manifestation is merely “permitted”. A concerned member of staff said it was creating a chilling effect around lawful protected-belief expression.
- Dr David Harris was stripped of his emeritus professorship at Plymouth Marjon University after publishing a scholarly critique of Critical Race Theory. Internal correspondence disclosed through a subject access request, including material where redactions had failed, showed senior administrators describing his research as “controversial” and suggesting the university should “sever ties” before his emeritus status was withdrawn.
- At SOAS, a major academic conference required participants to make a “land acknowledgement” recognising “the traditional owners of the land” or, in cases of “military occupation”, its status under international law. The policy cited Tel Aviv University as an example of how “land acknowledgement in the case of settler colonies” would apply, and Ariel University as an example of “land acknowledgement in the case of Occupied Territory”. Non-compliance would result in rejection of submissions or withdrawal of participation.
- A University of Leeds “decolonising” framework, flagged by a concerned academic who reported self-censorship as a result, requires departments to embed critical race theory-inflected principles across teaching and research, with compliance monitored through action plans, checklists and named staff responsible for delivery. The framework states that “all programmes include spaces for questioning colonial legacies and their contemporary implications” and requires “evidence of activity”. Staff who comply with these requirements and reshape their curricula are rewarded with the university’s “Decolonising Mark”. It also makes clear that the university will “value decolonising work explicitly”, including in “recruitment and promotion criteria”.
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.
Support CAF’s research, advocacy and casework defending academic freedom and free speech rights for staff and students across UK higher education.