UK universities are failing to safeguard academic freedom and have allowed activist-led pressure campaigns to flourish, with institutional leaders too often tolerating harassment, reputational attacks, and the marginalisation of scholars with gender-critical views, according to a government-commissioned review published this week.
The review, led by Professor Alice Sullivan, a sociologist at University College London, found that free speech and open inquiry on matters of sex and gender are “under attack” across the higher education sector, with systemic suppression of dissent, bureaucratic overreach, and managerial inertia identified as key factors.
Academics working on contentious topics – such as the use of puberty blockers in treating gender dysphoria, or the importance of biological sex in policymaking and law – have faced campaigns of intimidation, professional exclusion, and reputational damage, the review found. Some reported being denied promotion or publishing opportunities, subjected to disciplinary scrutiny, or pressured to withdraw from public engagement. Many also described self-censoring due to the perceived risks of addressing politically sensitive questions.
These findings form part of an independent review commissioned in February 2024 by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology under the previous Conservative government. The review team’s first report, published earlier this year, examined data and statistics. This second instalment focuses on barriers to research, particularly in academic settings.
Drawing on policy analysis, stakeholder interviews, and legal advice, the report situates its findings within broader concerns about the institutional culture of universities. One of its central observations is that the suppression of academic freedom in this area stems less from open disagreement than from unprofessional conduct that institutions have failed to address. “Toxicity is generated by behaviours rather than by conflicting viewpoints as such,” the report notes. “The staff involved in such behaviours constitute a small minority of university staff, yet the effects of tolerating and encouraging these behaviours are serious.”
High-profile cases such as those of Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor Jo Phoenix are referenced, but the report also highlights lesser-known examples as part of a broader pattern. One involves James Caspian, a psychotherapist whose proposed research into the experiences of individuals who detransition following medical or surgical gender transition was rejected by Bath Spa University. Although the study initially received ethical approval, the university later advised him to “rethink his thesis”, citing reputational risk and the political sensitivity of the topic.
In other areas of academic life, the report finds that pressure is increasingly exerted through the peer review process, a mechanism central to scholarly progression. One respondent said: “I have had great difficulty in getting articles which centre biological sex… accepted for publication in humanities and social science journals… when it comes to discussing girls’ and women’s human rights as a sex in a range of policy areas including sport, it now appears acceptable to negatively review purely on the basis of an evidence-free denial of binary biological sex and the minority view that reference to biological sex is transphobic.”
Another observed: “It is hard to get things published if you don’t accept gender identity ideology. Peer reviewers often comment on what they perceive as lack of inclusivity if you just use terms like ‘women’. People pretend like this is a confusing term now, which needs clarification.”
A similar pattern was reported by Dr Sallie Baxendale, a clinical neuropsychologist, whose review of the neurocognitive effects of puberty blockers was rejected on grounds that appeared unrelated to methodological rigour. “It wasn’t the methods they objected to,” she said. “It was the actual findings.”
The report also records that academics who hold to the view that sex is binary have been compared by colleagues to eugenicists, racists, colonialists, anti-Semites, fascists or “hate groups”. In some cases, such messages have been produced and circulated by university LGBTQ+ staff networks.
Alongside these cultural and reputational pressures, the report highlights structural features of the academic system that leave universities vulnerable to informal influence. Administrative systems – particularly those governing research ethics, event authorisation, and complaints procedures – are described as opaque, inconsistent, and easily exploited, enabling pressure to be exerted without transparency or oversight. Activist staff or networks have used internal processes, especially those linked to equalities, diversity and inclusion (EDI), to delay or obstruct research, escalate reputational complaints, or block events deemed politically contentious.
The review makes 20 recommendations to government, funding bodies, and university leaders.
Among the most significant for academic freedom are calls for universities to uphold viewpoint diversity, maintain institutional neutrality on contested political issues, and take active steps to protect researchers from harassment and professional reprisal. Institutions are also urged to revise complaints procedures that have been used to suppress dissent, and to ensure that ethics reviews focus on genuine ethical concerns rather than reputational risk.
On academic publishing, the review warns that discouraging the use of sex-based language, concepts, or data collection risks undermining trust in scholarly communication. To address this, it recommends that publishers and editors develop ethics guidelines to safeguard academic integrity in politically contested fields, and consider adopting statements of good practice committing journals to assess submissions on scholarly merit alone.
Other proposals include reviewing EDI structures to tackle overreach and ensure legal compliance, scaling back the influence of politicised staff networks and maintaining their independence from university administration, and fully implementing the Office for Students’ recent guidance on academic freedom and free speech.
The full reports are available here.
