Watered down plans will make free-speech law toothless, prof warns
‘Weakening the clause will weaken the incentives for institutions to uphold academic freedoms’
A CAMBRIDGE professor who defied student censors to host a debate with a gender critical feminist has warned that universities will be less likely to uphold freedom of speech rights under plans to water down new powers for academics and students.
Arif Ahmed, a philosophy professor who has taken a stand against “cancel culture” on campus, is among those protesting against the Government’s concessions to universities over a new free speech law. He said: “Free speech like any right is meaningless without credible enforcement.”
The Daily Telegraph revealed on Thursday that the Government has tabled amendments to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill that would mean academics and students would only be able to use new powers to sue universities for breaching their speech rights as a last resort.
They would first have to go through a complaints process with their universities and the sector regulator, which they fear could take years. Complainants would also have to show that they had suffered a loss. The Government’s concessions over the statutory tort in clause 4 of the Bill have been made following a backlash from vice-chancellors and members of the House of Lords, who have warned that the new powers to sue universities would create “unnecessary additional costs on universities”.
It is understood that ministers hope the amendments will stop members of the Lords from rejecting the tort entirely so that they can get the legislation passed before the next election.
The Bill will create a new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom in the Office for Students and ministers do not want this director to be selected under a possible Labour government.
However, campaigners such as Prof Ahmed fear that the amendments will make the powers toothless. He said: “The regulator by itself cannot always compel universities to uphold free speech rights; the courts can. They can also compel disclosure. They can also issue injunctions: without clause 4, there is a risk that silencing and no-platforming will stand while investigations drag on.
“I fear that weakening clause 4 will weaken the incentives for institutions to uphold the academic freedoms without which they do not deserve to be called universities.”
Prof Ahmed faced a backlash from students after inviting Helen Joyce, a gender critical feminist, journalist and author, to speak at Cambridge’s Gonville & Caius College in October. Prof Pippa Rogerson, the college’s master, wrote to students saying she was boycotting the “insulting and hateful” speaker.
Ms Joyce told The Telegraph that universities “find it too easy to ignore their obligations” on freedom of speech. She said she would not support any changes to legislation to make it easier for them to continue to ignore those duties.
The Government rejected suggestions that it is watering down the bill.
A spokesman said: “All the core provisions of the Bill remain as they have always been, to strengthen protections for freedom of speech in higher education. It was always our intention that the tort would be used as a last resort.”