The Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) has instructed a leading employment law firm to act for an Emeritus Professor after his University warned him to “reflect carefully” on his lawful online interventions on assisted dying – leaving him fearing that further public comment on an issue directly related to his academic expertise could put his institutional status at risk.
Professor Kevin Yuill spent 27 years at the University of Sunderland and has been Emeritus Professor of History since 2022. Societal attitudes to suicide and death are established areas of his research, and he has written on assisted suicide for the prestigious academic imprint Palgrave Macmillan. As the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill made its way through Parliament, he drew on that expertise to contribute to the debate online.
Then, in June, an anonymous complaint was filed about his social-media activity.
Without first asking Yuill for his response, or even telling him which posts had supposedly caused concern, Sunderland’s Deputy Vice-Chancellor Operations emailed him directly, warning that his emeritus title “carries an expectation that its use does not adversely affect the institution or conflict with its core values” and telling him to “reflect carefully” on the “tone and nature” of his communications.
Yuill then contacted CAF for support, and we helped force disclosure of the complaint under data-protection law.
What emerged was extraordinary. The University had intervened on the basis of a complaint centred not on unlawful speech, but on allegations that Yuill had shown a “lack of empathy”, “weaponised his public platform”, damaged Sunderland’s “reputation” and, in opposing assisted suicide, lacked the “objectivity expected of a university academic”.
Why is that “extraordinary”? Because English universities now operate under specific statutory duties to secure freedom of speech within the law for academics. Sunderland’s own Free Speech Code identifies, among the grounds on which a complaint will not be accepted:
“Complaints based solely on the subject matter of lawful free speech and academic freedom which has offended, caused upset, distress or hurt, as this is not a legitimate or valid basis for a complaint in its own right.”
Yet rather than first putting the allegations to Yuill and establishing whether there was any legitimate basis for intervention, one of the University’s most senior administrators put him on notice that his public speech could have implications for his association with Sunderland.
Yuill understandably felt that his card had been marked. With assisted-dying legislation due back before Parliament on 11 September, the University’s intervention was hanging over him as he considered whether to participate in a public debate directly connected to his academic work.
That is why CAF has instructed employment solicitor Elliot Hammer of Branch Austin McCormick LLP to act for Yuill. As first reported in The Telegraph, Yuill’s legal letter calls on Sunderland to apologise, reaffirm its commitment to freedom of speech and assure Yuill that he can continue participating lawfully in the assisted-dying debate without fear of professional detriment.
While CAF takes no view on Yuill’s substantive views, or on those of any scholar we support, there is an important issue of principle at stake. If academics have to worry that expressing controversial views within the law might put their institutional status or privileges at risk, protection for academic freedom in the statute books becomes meaningless on campus.
Universities should protect the space for disagreement on matters of huge social importance, not add institutional pressure to one side of the argument.
CAF exists to defend that space – investigating cases, challenging universities and, where necessary, funding legal advice and interventions.
If you want us to do more of it, please consider donating to CAF:
And sign up to our free newsletter to follow this case as it develops: