One in Five University Academics Don’t Feel Free to Teach Controversial Topics

New freedom of speech guidance from the Office for Students (OfS) includes examples of how universities and colleges might best respond to a range of scenarios. 

The guidance is designed to help institutions navigate their duties under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act to take steps to secure freedom of speech and to have a free speech code of practice. These duties will come into force on 1 August this year. 

Unlawful speech is not protected, and the guidance offers examples to show where speech may be contrary to equality, anti-terrorism or public order legislation. The guidance explains that the bar to restrict lawful speech at universities and colleges is particularly high. But it also sets out the latitude institutions have to restrict the time, place or manner of lawful speech if it interferes with the core learning, teaching or research functions of the institution.

Institutions must take reasonably practicable steps to secure lawful speech, including for example by:

• Supporting constructive dialogue on contentious subjects.
• Amending or terminating agreements with foreign states or institutions enabling censorship on English campuses.
• Not punishing students or staff for lawful expression of a viewpoint, including expression that is critical of the institution.
• Not requiring applicants for academic jobs or promotions to show commitment to a viewpoint.

Arif Ahmed, Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom at the OfS, said: 

“The core mission of universities and colleges is the pursuit of knowledge. Free speech and academic freedom are fundamental to this purpose. Students need to know that they can freely share lawful views and opinions, and be prepared to hear a range of views as part of their studies. This includes things that they may find uncomfortable or shocking. By being exposed to a diversity of academic thought, students will develop their analytical and critical thinking skills. 

“Today’s guidance provides institutions with a range of examples on how to respond – and how not to respond – in different scenarios. These cover contentious topics like international relations and the interaction between free speech and equality obligations. It’s essential that universities keep in mind that there is a very high bar for restricting lawful speech. Ultimately each case will need to be considered on its particular circumstances. But in all cases universities must have particular regard for the importance of freedom of speech.

“Many institutions have already done significant work to prepare for these new duties, including by reviewing their existing free speech statements and codes of practice. As they progress this work, it’s important to remember that universities can regulate speech where appropriate. No university needs to allow shouting during an exam, or for a maths lecturer to devote their lectures to their own political opinions rather than the subject at hand. Equally, they can and should take steps to address harassing speech on campus. Antisemitic harassment, for example, should not be tolerated on any campus and we fully expect universities to take robust steps to tackle it.

“This guidance emphasises that freedom of speech is the freedom to impart ideas, opinions or information. Universities may sometimes need to regulate the time, place and manner of the expression – when, where and how you speak – but they can’t ban ideas.

“We recognise that getting this right requires work and thought, as has been the case since the late 1980s, when most universities were first subject to statutory free speech requirements. Universities and colleges should continue preparation for their new duties, and we will continue to work constructively with them as they take this important work forward. 

“We are grateful to the individuals and organisations that took the time to respond to our consultation, and we will continue to engage with students and institutions as we take this important work forward. These views have helped us to shape our plans as we prepare for our new responsibilities in this area.”

Susan Lapworth, OfS chief executive, said:

“The OfS is determined to ensure universities continue to be the essential places in society where academic freedom and free speech within the law are prized and given the utmost protection. Today’s guidance sets out a range of steps we expect universities to take to achieve this. It also explains the latitude each institution has to deliver its essential academic functions – learning, teaching and research – and to rightly protect students from bullying and harassment.”

Alongside the guidance, the OfS is also publishing the results of a poll of academics on freedom of speech and academic freedom. This poll was conducted in 2024, with publication paused after the government announced its intention to review implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. 

The polling found that: 

• One in five academics on both the political left and right do not feel free (‘not very free’ or ‘not at all free’) to teach controversial topics, rising to one in three afraid to discuss them more generally, e.g. in external speaking engagements.
• Sex/gender is the top topic academics feel restricted discussing, and there is considerable variation depending on context. Perceived restrictions on discussing sex/gender are consistent across the political spectrum.
• A quarter (24%) of those who do not feel free in their teaching cite fear of physical attack.

Commenting on the polling, Arif Ahmed said: 

“The results of this poll are deeply disturbing, and show that a sizeable minority of academics from across the political spectrum do not feel free to teach, research or discuss controversial topics. Five per cent are reluctant to teach such topics because they are concerned about physical attack. This cannot stand, and should concern vice-chancellors up and down the country. Universities should now take steps to ensure that they are robust and unwavering in their support for academic freedom.”