Proposed: Ellen Shobrook

Seconder: Andrew Olson

NB: Recieved unanimous support at an inquorate GMM on 17/09/24, and passed by (digital) BUCU Committee vote on 24/09/24  

This branch notes:

• That the current UoB Code of Practice on Free Speech was unilaterally reviewed and updated by the University in April 2024, and was not subject to consultation with UCU or UNISON. 
• That the code of practice has been used to obstruct the organisation of protest and restrict academic freedom creating an environment of intimidation
• That the justification for review and revisions was to ensure compliance with the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which was due to come into force on 1st August 2024. However, following the election of a Labour government in the UK, the Secretary of State for Education announced the government’s intention ‘to stop further commencement of [the Act], in order to consider options, including its repeal’ on 26 July 2024. 
• That the review took place in the absence of government guidelines (due to be released in mid-2024) for its implementation in line with the 2023 Act
• That the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 therefore has no bearing on the University’s obligations in respect of freedom of speech and academic freedom, and a Code of practice created to ensure compliance with this act is now unfit for purpose. 

This branch believes:

• That the current UoB Code of Practice on Free Speech will “inhibit free speech within the law rather than enhance it” and is “unclear, difficult to navigate, or impose bureaucratic hurdles”, the effect of which will deter students and staff from discussing important issues (especially when controversial), holding events and inviting external speakers – potential concerns which were identified in a 2018 Joint Committee on Human Rights Report (Freedom of Speech in Universities inquiry).
• That there are a number of areas in which the current UoB Code of Practice on Free Speech is both unlawful and unworkable. It is difficult to follow, frequently ambiguous, vague, over-inclusive (at times absurdly so), unnecessarily burdensome, poorly drafted and likely to have a chilling-effect on freedom of speech rather than protect it. The Code’s drafting weakens the presumption in favour of permission as required by law, including under the European Convention on Human Rights, and requires decision-makers to undertake an assessment of proportionality without clear, user-friendly guidance structured to ensure that unnecessary restrictions are not imposed and improper distinctions being drawn.  Lines of responsibility are unclear and overly broad and decisions are not documented or subject to a requirement for transparency. For these reasons, it is most likely unlawful and the reasons for this have been laid out in full in a separate statement.   
• That whilst the VC acknowledged, in his ‘View from the VC’ email of 6th September 2024 that the Code of Practice on Free Speech “will need some minor changes in light of the government’s decision”, there is still no commitment to meaningfully consult with the campus unions on this. 

This branch resolves:

• To campaign for the University to review and revise the policy, including proper and meaningful consultation with the recognised trade unions, students, and other stakeholders.  
• That if no meaningful consultation with BUCU takes place, that we will consult with BUCU members and UoB students on possible ways to challenge the legitimacy of the current UoB Code of Practice on Free Speech (including options to vote for a boycott of the policy, and /or strategic over-compliance with the policy).
• That any action decided upon (under the point above) will continue until proper and meaningful consultation with campus union has been satisfied.
• That BUCU is committed to defending the rights of Academic Freedom, Free Speech, and the UNESCO Human Right to peaceful protest. We will unequivocally challenge any instances where we believe these rights are being inhibited under the guise of a unfit-for purpose Code of Practice, and support any individuals who are subject to the invocation of the code in order to silence lawful views.