The University of Cambridge recently issued new rules on protecting freedom of speech on campus and was quick to point out that it had introduced them “despite” the Government shelving the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, under which universities would be legally required to take “reasonably practicable” steps to secure freedom of speech within the law for its staff, students and visiting speakers.
In its updated Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech, Cambridge said that it is “fully committed to the principle, and to the promotion of freedom of speech” for staff and students.
The University also promised to ensure that its “codes of conduct and other behaviour policies” will “ensure no individual will be subjected to disciplinary sanction or other less favourable treatment because of the lawful exercise of freedom of speech or academic freedom”.
While this development is welcome, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the FSU is currently supporting an early career Research Fellow at Cambridge who had his affiliation with Emmanuel College terminated over a controversial blog post he wrote speculating about why some ethnic groups are more successful than others.
Initially, the College defended Dr Cofnas’s right to academic freedom, but then quickly bowed to pressure from activists.
In an extraordinary letter setting out the reasoning behind its decision to sever all ties with him, the College claimed his blog amounted to a rejection of the University’s Diversity, Equality and Inclusion policies, and therefore “represented a challenge to the College’s core values and mission”.
The irony here is that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act was specifically designed to apply to cases like that of Dr Cofnas. Indeed, draft regulatory advice produced by the Office for Students (OfS) ahead of the Act coming into force discusses a hypothetical case (example 22) that bears striking similarities to this one, and concludes that retaining the hypothetical researcher in the face of protests from staff and students “is likely to have been a reasonably practicable step that [the College] should have taken”.
In other words, if Cambridge really is keen to act as if the new law was in place, Emmanuel should reverse its decision.
If you can, please donate to Dr Cofnas’s legal crowdfunder and help him challenge his dismissal.
