This is not just a cautionary tale – it is a watershed moment that makes clear the government’s resolve to ensure that academic freedom and lawful free expression are not merely ideals, but enforceable duties.
The fine followed a detailed investigation by the Office for Students (OfS), the regulator for higher education in England, into how the University of Sussex handled the case of Professor Kathleen Stock. Prof. Stock resigned in 2021 after facing sustained student protests over her views on gender identity and sex-based rights, views which, while controversial to some, were within the bounds of lawful academic expression.
The OfS concluded that the university failed in its statutory duty to secure free speech by permitting an environment that deterred the lawful expression of those views. The regulator found that the university’s policies and actions (or lack thereof) had a “chilling effect” on academic freedom, thereby breaching the requirements set out in the Act.
This case demonstrates the real financial and reputational consequences that institutions face when they fail to meet their legal obligations under the new regime. The Act places robust, positive duties on higher education providers and their student unions to uphold and protect free speech within the law. This includes not only protecting controversial or unpopular views but also ensuring that institutional policies and campus culture do not, intentionally or otherwise, discourage lawful expression.
Universities are no longer simply expected to not interfere with freedom of speech; they are required to take active steps to protect and promote it. That’s a significant shift in regulatory tone. Passive neutrality is no longer sufficient.
So, what does this mean in practical terms for institutions?
First, policies and procedures must be reviewed with fresh eyes. Many universities have long-standing equality, diversity and inclusion policies. These are valuable frameworks in themselves, but they must now be balanced against the legal requirements to uphold freedom of speech. Where those policies are written or applied in ways that might indirectly stifle lawful expression, for example, by implying that certain political or academic views are unacceptable, they may expose the institution to legal and regulatory challenge.
The Sussex case has shown that having the right policies in place is not enough. The way those policies are interpreted and implemented matters enormously. Institutions must ensure that their internal decision-making processes consider the implications for free speech in every relevant context, including disciplinary action, speaker invitations, protests and campus safety.
Second, institutions should put in place clear, accessible procedures for staff, students and visiting speakers to raise concerns if they feel their freedom of speech has been restricted or undermined. The Act enables individuals to bring claims directly before the courts or submit complaints to the OfS. Having internal mechanisms that work effectively may help to resolve issues before they escalate externally. These processes need to be well-publicised, transparent and designed in consultation with the affected communities.
Third, training is crucial. Many of the obligations under the Act require judgment calls, especially when controversial views intersect with the rights of others. University leadership teams, academic staff, HR professionals, students’ union officers and event organisers all need to understand the scope of the law: what it protects, where the limits lie (for example incitement to violence or harassment) and how to strike the right balance when those limits are approached. It’s not just a legal issue, it’s also a cultural one.
Fourth, institutions should think carefully about how they manage speaker events, particularly those likely to attract public or internal protest. The Act requires that, in most cases, controversial speakers should be allowed to speak provided their views are lawful. Security concerns must be addressed, but not used as a pretext for cancellation. Reasonable steps must be taken to facilitate the event safely, not to avoid it entirely. At the same time, universities must also safeguard the right to peaceful protest, without allowing that protest to silence debate.
Lastly, communication matters. Universities and colleges should be open and vocal about their commitment to free speech, particularly when it’s being tested. Leadership needs to set the tone by affirming the institution’s responsibility to uphold diverse viewpoints, even when those views are unpopular or provocative.
Silence in the face of controversy may be interpreted by regulators, courts or the public as tacit approval of suppression. Clarity, consistency and lawful justification are the keys to getting it right.
It is worth noting that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 also introduces a new statutory tort, allowing individuals who believe their rights to free speech have been unlawfully infringed to sue for damages. This creates a direct line of accountability, potentially costly in both financial and reputational terms. The regulator, too, has the power to impose sanctions, as Sussex has learned. And the OfS has made clear that it will not hesitate to use those powers where it finds systemic failures.
In short, the Act signals a broader cultural and legal shift, one that prioritises free and open discourse as a defining feature of higher education. Institutions that fail to engage meaningfully with this shift are taking serious risks.
The bottom line is this: getting it wrong can now cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and a public regulatory reprimand. Getting it right requires more than lip service; it requires proactive policy, thoughtful implementation and a deep understanding of where the lines are drawn.
For those running or advising educational institutions, the takeaway is clear. Freedom of speech is not a sideline issue. It’s a legal duty, an operational priority and increasingly, a reputational marker and in this new legal environment, failure to comply could cost far more than a headline.