Anti-tobacco academic wants his views protected in law

A PROFESSOR in addictive behaviours is suing the University of York to have his anti-tobacco views protected under equality laws.

Prof Jim Mccambridge believes his stance on the dangers of big tobacco companies is a “philosophical belief ”, which is protected under UK employment law. The academic has taken the university to court over claims that his views caused bosses to treat him unfairly during an investigation into bullying and harassment of students.

An employment tribunal judge will rule whether the professor’s view that tobacco companies should not be allowed to interfere with policy-making amounts to a “protected philosophical belief ”.

Prof Mccambridge, who is the chair of addictive behaviours and public health, also criticised the university over its association with Neil Mckeganey, a former University of Glasgow professor and drug researcher whose company received funding from Philip Morris, the tobacco giant.

Details of his case emerged after the University of York unsuccessfully tried to have the professor’s case thrown out at the preliminary hearing in Leeds.

Prof Mccambridge said: “Public health needs to be protected from policy interference and associated interventions within science by the alcohol and tobacco industries, so that the integrity of science is preserved.”

He is said to have emailed his bosses in 2016 and 2017 criticising the university’s “relationship” with Mckeganey, which, he claimed, would “impact adversely on the health of some unidentified people in society”.

Separately, he claims he was subjected to “serious procedural unfairness” in an investigation into his conduct after complaints by three students. He alleges the investigation, which concluded he committed bullying and harassment, was linked to his belief.

At the hearing, the university urged Ian Miller, the employment judge, to throw out his case, claiming “no sensible reading” of his claim could lead to it being a protected belief. Judge Miller said it must be tried at a full tribunal to determine whether it does amount to a protected philosophical belief.

The judge said: “He might be able to show he reasonably believed the information set out demonstrated that the health of society at large ... was put at an increased risk from tobacco companies.”