Education Secretary faces legal action over blocked free speech law

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson is being taken to court for ditching a free speech law just before it was due to come into force.

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which was due to be implemented in August, was designed to protect academic freedom by establishing a complaints scheme for students, staff and speakers, enabling them to seek compensation if they were “cancelled” on campus.

The Free Speech Union has been granted a judicial review hearing in January to appeal the controversial move, with a High Court judge agreeing that it is in the “public interest” to resolve this promptly.

‘Hounded’

Akua Reindorf KC, who is a Commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: “We have some very, very serious incidents that we are all very familiar with – people who are very senior in universities being hounded out of their jobs or hounded around their campus.”

She emphasised: “It affects people’s lives, their livelihoods, and also their fundamental human rights. Freedom of speech is the fundamental human right, it is the core right in the Human Rights Act, because without freedom of speech, we cannot advocate for our other human rights.”

Historian David Abulafia from Cambridge University agreed that the current situation is “intolerable”, saying: “What is a university if it is not a place where you can exchange ideas?”

A Department for Education spokesperson claimed that the Act “risks imposing serious burdens” on universities, and confirmed that it is currently considering the future of the legislation.

Protections

In August, over 500 academics from across Britain urged the Education Secretary to implement the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.

In an open letter, the signatories said that free speech duties “on universities have long been neglected, despite being enshrined in law”, and that hundreds of academics and students “have been hounded, censured, silenced or even sacked over the last 20 years for the expression of legal opinions”.

The Act, they argued, would actually serve to protect the freedoms of vulnerable groups and save universities “money on court costs, by providing a speedy and efficient way of resolving what would otherwise be protracted legal disputes”.

The letter concluded: “Academics and students of all persuasions need the protection afforded by the Freedom of Speech Act.”