England’s higher education regulator has put universities on notice, urging them to revisit their sex and gender policies after fining the University of Sussex £585,000 over policies it said chilled lawful academic speech.
In a letter to vice-chancellors, Arif Ahmed, Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom at the Office for Students (OfS), said institutions must consider whether they are meeting their legal responsibilities, following the Sussex investigation. In the weeks since the case report was published, several universities have already begun reviewing their own internal policies – some of which appear to draw on the same policy template that Sussex used.
In his letter, Ahmed, a Cambridge philosophy professor appointed to the OfS role last year, writes: “It may be that your policies in this respect are compliant with the relevant regulatory requirements. However, if you are not doing so already, I encourage you to review relevant policies in light of the OfS’s findings… and consider the steps you may need to take to ensure the university is meeting its regulatory obligations in these areas.”
Ahmed’s letter comes just weeks after the OfS fined Sussex £585,000 – 15 times more than any previous penalty it has levied – for what it called “serious and significant” free speech failings in its treatment of Professor Kathleen Stock. Accused of ‘transphobia’ for her gender-critical views, Stock was forced out of the university in 2021 following a sustained campaign of bullying and character assassination.
The fine was accompanied by a devastating report in which the OfS denounced Sussex’s “trans and non-binary equality” statement for undermining academic freedom and creating a “chilling effect”. The report went on:
An example of this effect in practice is the experience of Stock. There were some views she did not feel able to express, and therefore teach, despite those views being lawful. Other staff and students may have felt similarly unable to express these, or other, lawful views.
The OfS also identified broader failings in Sussex’s management and governance procedures.
“We took action to ensure that students have a high-quality education and are exposed to a wide range of academic thought and argument,” Ahmed wrote. “Our action also ensures that academic staff can teach and research lawful topics with confidence, even if they are controversial.”
He continued: “The OfS’s interest is in ensuring the protection and promotion of lawful speech – irrespective of the views expressed.”
At the time it was announced, the regulator said the record penalty was “significantly discounted” as this was the first case of its type, but warned that universities could be subject to even bigger fines in the future.
Ahmed is understood to have met with several vice-chancellors in recent weeks to discuss how the OfS’s regulatory requirements apply in practice.
While the regulator’s stance may appear clear-cut, the ruling has introduced a new layer of legal uncertainty for universities.
It is unclear how many institutions received the letter, but several law firms have confirmed receiving enquiries from universities seeking advice on how to respond to the ruling. Legal experts warn that the Sussex case has created uncertainty due to a lack of clarity around how free speech duties interact with other regulatory obligations.
In particular, a new condition of registration is set to come into force in August 2025 that will require universities and colleges to outline how they will tackle harassment and sexual misconduct. The risk, some believe, is that institutions may struggle to reconcile these new duties with the OfS’s recent judgment, especially where contested issues like gender identity are involved.
Following publication of the OfS’s report, Sussex Vice-Chancellor Sasha Roseneil wrote a blistering article for Politics Home, in which she declared: “The Office for Students’ so-called investigation into the university I represent was flawed and politically motivated” – and the tone didn’t soften from there.
The university has since announced it will take legal action, challenging both the scale of the fine via a tribunal and the OfS’s judgment itself through judicial review.
Roseneil appears bullish about the outcome. “I think our position is extremely strong, and I think they will lose a judicial review,” she said. “But I’m not surprised that they’ve dug in, because [the OfS] has been so determined to pursue this, and so unwilling to engage.”
The OfS, for its part, remains confident in its position. “We are confident in the decisions made in this case and will vigorously defend any legal action,” said a spokesperson.
Reacting to the regulator’s recent letter to vice-chancellors, Free Speech Union (FSU) founder Lord Young of Acton expressed his support, stating:
“I raised this issue in the House of Lords following the OfS’s fine of Sussex for its unlawful trans policy when I asked an education minister whether other English universities who’d based policies on the same Advance HE template would now have to review those policies. I’m glad the [OfS] is asking them to do just that.”
The OfS’s intervention has also drawn wider support from a coalition of academics and free speech campaigners, who wrote to The Times this week backing what they described as “clear and proportionate sanctions” against Sussex.
Warning that universities “must not compel academics to adopt contested positions on matters of public or scholarly debate”, the signatories urged other institutions with similar policies to reconsider them in light of the OfS’s findings.
The letter – signed by academics from institutions including Oxford, Cambridge, LSE and Imperial College London – described censorship as “undermin[ing] the fundamental mission of higher education.”
There’s more on this story here.
