We noted with interest that Adam Tickell has indicated a need for changes to the Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech. This is because the new government has paused the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. We welcome this chance to revisit the Code because we (UNISON and UCU together) have previously raised our concerns about the Code and Adam has indicated that now there is an opportunity for improvements.

We have raised a number of concerns with the university, which are listed below.

---

Lack of consultation

One of our first concerns is that the university has not consulted staff, through discussion with the staff unions, during the process of developing the code. The UCU has recently produced a detailed analysis of the legal context relevant to a University’s requirement to uphold freedom of speech (details of which we will share in due course) and the legal basis for our concerns are very clear. In this moment of pause for revision the university has the opportunity to rectify the lack of meaningful consultation with staff.

Remit for the Code is too broad

Virtually all academic activities – lectures, workshops, seminars, research meetings – would be covered by the new code, in additional to external speakers and events that were the domain of previous procedures. In fact, it is difficult to understand what university activities would not be potentially covered by the code. UCU suggests the remit should be much narrower and exclude normal academic activities of teaching and research.

Responsibilities are too vague and too inclusive

Organizers and Heads of Schools are specifically mentioned. They are tasked with responsibility for an undefined and unlimited domain of activities surrounding events, including the activities of people that they have no ability or responsibility to control.

A broad remit and overly inclusive domain of responsibility will make people play safe. Fears of falling foul of the code means that people will err on the side of limiting activities that might, after the fact, be raised as problematic. This will restrict, rather than promote, freedom of speech.

This emphasis reverses with the legal context, where restrictions can be placed on activities only when the university is able to present evidence that there are specifically defined risks to the health, safety and rights of persons present on campus. UCU suggests that the correct emphasis is one outlined in legal precedent. Events should be allowed unless there is specific evidence of risk in very specific domains.

Requirement for opposing views to always be included

The code requires “measures to ensure that opposing views can be put forward lawfully (e.g. by considering the balance of the speakers, or requiring an independent chairperson to facilitate an event).” There is no legal basis for requiring “balance” in event. It is obvious that university events frequently involve people who are advocating for a particular position and the authority that defines a relevant “opposing view” is not specified. This will make academic discussion either difficult or impossible, if applied seriously, with potential post-hoc problems very easy to invent. UCU suggests that this requirement be removed.

Requirement of 14 days notice

While this may sometimes not be burdensome, on other occasions universities should be able to facilitate discussion and debate about important and rapidly developing events. UCU suggests that, while 14 days’ notice of events could normally be required, the Code should acknowledge that this might not always be possible, and that a failure to provide 14 days notice should not, by itself, be considered a reason for refusing consent.

Grounds for refusal are too broad

At least as currently written these are not specific enough or based on established law (Equality Act 2010; Public Order Act 1986). They could be interpreted to forbid speakers who advocate non-violent direct action, or who hold views that some or even many community members don’t agree with. One example: The code mentions restricting view that promote “non-violent extremism in pursuit of political, religious, philosophical or other beliefs”. Since non-violent “extremism” is not defined, this could prohibit discussion of beliefs with a long and respectable heritage, including most of an undergraduate political philosophy course, and large parts of doctrines of major religions. UCU suggests these criteria are modified to be much more limited and specific.

No requirement for transparency

There is no requirement that the Authorising Officer give reasons for decisions or reference any criteria. This is in contrast to the broad responsibilities placed on Heads of Schools and organizers. UCU suggests that, given the importance of Freedom of Speech in an academic environment and the specific terms that a properly developed Code should reference, decisions should be signed and they should reference specific evidence and criteria when events are restricted.

---

Conclusion

We welcome the University’s desire to revisit the Code and also the opportunity to develop, together, a code that will more comprehensively guarantee a commitment to freedom of speech on campus. We invite the university to work with us on that basis.