Labour’s Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, shelved a free speech law in part because British universities wanted to protect their operations in authoritarian states such as China, reports the Telegraph.
In response to a legal challenge from the Free Speech Union (FSU), government lawyers conceded that “concerns” had been raised with them about the “consequences for delivering English higher education in foreign countries which have restrictions on free speech”.
Several British universities operate overseas campuses as a way to attract more international students, as well as boost opportunities for lucrative research partnerships.
According to the latest figures, 18 universities have 38 campuses in 18 countries, with China and Malaysia the most popular destinations, followed by Dubai and Singapore.
The Russell Group, which represents the country’s top universities, has previously warned of the difficulties institutions would face if they had to implement the new free speech law in their campuses overseas.
According to Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, many universities now rely on China to prop up their finances to an “amazing degree”.
The legal document sent in response to the FSU’s challenge also refers to concerns about the “costs of overseas transparency requirements”, which would have required universities to declare donations from foreign countries, over a certain amount.
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act was a carefully crafted piece of legislation, properly debated in both Houses of Parliament, and designed to address the free speech crisis in English universities. Having received cross-party support during the last Parliament, its most important clauses were due to be commenced on 1st August
However, because Rishi Sunak called an election before the Act had been fully implemented, the Education Secretary seized her chance to derail it.
At the FSU, we’ve vowed to fight this wanton act of vandalism with everything we’ve got, not least because if the Education Secretary’s decision is allowed to stand, it will become virtually impossible for students and academics to challenge radical progressive ideology on campus.
That’s why, earlier this month, we sent a pre-action protocol to the Education Secretary, setting out why we think her decision not to commence the Act was ultra vires, and threatening a judicial review if she doesn’t step back from the brink.
You can read our pre-action protocol letter, setting out our case in detail below.
This letter placed Ms Phillipson under a legal duty of candour, which requires that she disclose any documents showing the basis for her decision to torpedo the Act.
It is therefore thanks to our pre-action protocol letter that the government’s lawyers have been forced to reveal how the Education Secretary has long been aware that the UK’s powerful university lobby regards maintaining its lucrative commercial relationships with authoritarian, human-rights infringing regimes around the world as more important than upholding free speech, academic freedom and viewpoint diversity on overseas campuses.
Following this revelation, campaigners have accused ministers of a “cover-up” for failing to be “transparent” about the full set of reasons for dropping the Bill.
Sam Dunning, director of the UK China Transparency think-tank, told the Telegraph: “It’s clear that there was a decision not to communicate these concerns about China-related income. It is not unreasonable to infer this has been covered up.”
It’s difficult to disagree. Over the past few weeks, Ms Phillipson and various anonymous ‘party sources’ have been all too happy to brief the media on a veritable smorgasbord of highly dubious assertions, all of which they say guided the Government’s decision to torpedo the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act: it was the “Tories’ hate speech” charter, we were told; it would be too burdensome for universities, it would lead to costly and frivolous legal action, it would be damaging for vulnerable groups.
Despite this chattiness, however, concerns about English universities jeopardising their cozy relationship with the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party and other, similarly unsavoury regimes around the world if they were forced by UK law to uphold European Enlightenment values at their lucrative overseas campuses were never mentioned.
Speaking to the Telegraph, FSU General Secretary Toby Young said: “It’s becoming increasingly clear that the reason universities lobbied the Government to quash the Freedom of Speech Act is because they’re worried it will jeopardise their cosy relationship with various authoritarian regimes, particularly the People’s Republic of China. Bridget Phillipson should have told them to put principle before profit, not done their bidding.
“Universities are now totally financially dependent on China and the Government doesn’t want to interfere because the alternative is having to give them more money, which they don’t want to do.”
If you can, please donate to our legal crowdfunder and help meet some of the costs of our impending legal battle with the Government over its shocking decision to torpedo this vital piece of legislation, which received cross-party support during the last Parliament, and was designed to tackle campus cancel culture and uphold free speech in universities.
Thank you for your help in this fight. Your donation will help us strike a blow for academic freedom and send a message to the Government that the power of the executive is not unlimited.
