CAF has written to Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) warning that its external-speaker policies for both academic staff and the Students’ Union replace Parliament’s statutory protections for freedom of speech within the law with vague, subjective and extra-legal tests, including whether a speaker may “incite harm”, “insult” particular groups or express views regarded as contrary to the University’s “values”. In doing so, the forms create new grounds for restricting or cancelling lawful but “controversial” events, lowering the threshold well below that established by Parliament.
The concerns arise from two operational documents recently drawn to our attention by members of academic staff: an External Speaker Form used for staff-organised events and the Students’ Union’s External Speaker Process and Guidance.
Our letter argues that both documents depart not only from the statutory framework introduced by the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 (HEFSA), but from QMUL’s own Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech, which was adopted specifically to implement those new legal duties.
As it happens, QMUL’s Code gets the law exactly right and, in its precision, has the unmistakable whiff of a document prepared by external counsel. Adopting the longstanding Article 10 principle established in Handyside v United Kingdom, it recognises the freedom of staff, students and visiting speakers to express views that are “unpopular, controversial, shocking, disturbing, upsetting or offensive”, provided they remain within the law. It also adopts the Office for Students’ central principle that all speech is lawful unless restricted by law and accepts that the expression of unpopular views is not a ground for refusing or cancelling an event. Most importantly, it makes clear that the University is not entitled to substitute its own rules, values or preferences for the legal framework established by Parliament.
Nor is this merely aspirational language. The Code exists to discharge a statutory duty. Responsibility for its day-to-day implementation rests with QMUL’s senior officers, including the President and Principal, who are accountable for ensuring that “this Code and its principles are applied consistently across all activities under their management”.
The problem is that, somewhere between the publication of the Code and the drafting of the operational documents staff and students are actually expected to use, the lawyers appear to have left the room.
Alongside appropriate references to events remaining “within the law”, those documents introduce additional approval criteria based upon whether speakers “spread … intolerance”, “insult” certain groups, or whether their views or past actions “may incite harm”. Elsewhere the documents require events to present no risk to the University’s reputation, reserve a right to reject speakers whose views conflict with the University’s “values”, and – in perhaps the most extraordinary departure from Parliament’s scheme – permit the approval criteria to be amended by reference to “prevailing social and cultural norms”.
CAF’s letter argues that these vague and legally problematic formulations are liable to chill lawful speech.
Faced with those criteria, an academic organising a controversial but lawful event may simply abandon it rather than risk falling foul of undefined institutional standards. Equally, decision-makers may refuse or condition lawful events before asking the speech-protective questions required by QMUL’s own Code: first, whether the proposed speech is lawful and, if so, what reasonably practicable measures could enable the event to proceed safely.
The academic-facing form also warns that non-compliance may result in the loss of future event-organising privileges or disciplinary action. There is nothing objectionable about that in itself: like any institution, a university is entitled to enforce lawful procedures. The difficulty arises when disciplinary consequences become attached to criteria that depart from the statutory framework governing freedom of speech. Indeed, those criteria are so vague and subjective that they may expose academic organisers to disadvantage where an external speaker expressing views protected as philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010 is subsequently alleged to have been “insulting”, to have “spread intolerance” or to have “incited harm”.
The problem is particularly acute because organising scholarly events forms part of an academic’s professional role and is recognised in QMUL’s promotions criteria. An institution that actively encourages academics to organise conferences and public events, but elsewhere deters them from inviting lawful but controversial speakers – or exposes them to disciplinary consequences on grounds falling below the threshold established by Parliament and reflected in its own Code – creates precisely the conditions in which legal challenge becomes foreseeable.
The letter gives QMUL 30 days to clarify the status of the relevant forms, investigate how documents inconsistent with its own Code came to be drafted, approved and used, review any decisions taken under the challenged criteria, suspend reliance upon those criteria pending review, and revise both documents and any related guidance. It also demands role-specific training for staff involved in speaker approval and greater transparency over decision-making and appeals.
Crucially, if QMUL maintains that any of the challenged criteria should remain, it will have to justify them. CAF has asked the University to identify the legal basis for each criterion, explain how it is to be applied in practice, and show why it is compatible with Parliament’s statutory framework for freedom of speech.
We hope these issues can be resolved without further action. If they cannot, CAF stands ready to assist affected academics, students and visiting speakers in pursuing every available avenue of redress, including the Office for Students’ new free speech complaints scheme, which opens on 1 September 2026. The University’s response, and the position of any individual adversely affected by these procedures, will determine what further remedies may be appropriate.
QMUL is unlikely to be the only university whose operational policies have failed to keep pace with the law. If you have concerns about your own institution’s external-speaker procedures, we would be pleased to hear from you in confidence at manager@afcomm.org.uk.