Earlier this year, CAF wrote to the House of Commons Library raising concerns that its briefing, Freedom of Speech in Universities, downplayed the campus free-speech problem — and, in particular, the extent of self-censorship among academic staff, especially those whose views run contrary to prevailing orthodoxies on issues such as women’s sex-based rights.
More specifically, our argument was that aspects of the summary framing, and the inferences drawn from survey evidence, gave an unduly narrow picture of the nature, drivers and scale of self-censorship, and related constraints on lawful speech, in higher education. That was especially problematic 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 was how survey evidence was being presented, and what could safely be inferred from it. The briefing relied heavily on an OfS-commissioned YouGov staff survey, yet its summary gloss described self-censorship as affecting only “a minority” of academics, even though the same survey found 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 a “significant proportion”, the deeper problem is that a representative survey can estimate a sector-wide average, but does not, by itself, show that the relevant pressures are evenly distributed across disciplines, subject areas, institutions or career stages. Put another way, pooled averages, absent disaggregation, can look reassuring 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 the point. 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, cited by 58% of respondents to its call for evidence. The Review also found that these pressures were often rooted in local working environments, rather than arising solely from individual disposition. Among gender-critical respondents, three-quarters identified the behaviour of colleagues or supervisors, and institutional culture within universities, as the main drivers.
The Library responded by thanking CAF for its “close and considered reading of our briefing and your thoughtful letter”, and confirming that several changes would be made in the next update. In particular, the “minority of academics” line would be changed to “some academics”. Equally importantly, the section on academic staff and self-censorship would now note that “academics working in some contentious subject areas may feel more compelled to self-censor than others”, highlighting submissions to the Sullivan Review.
Those changes have now been made. We are grateful to the Library for its careful and constructive response.
You can read the updated briefing here, and our original letter in full here.
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.