Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023

Last updated

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023
Act of Parliament
Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (2022, variant 1).svg
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long title An Act to make provision in relation to freedom of speech and academic freedom in higher education institutions and in students’ unions; and for connected purposes.
Citation 2023 c. 16
Introduced by Gavin Williamson, Secretary of State for Education (Commons)
Frederick Curzon, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lords)
Territorial extent 
  • England and Wales
  • Scotland
Dates
Royal assent 11 May 2023
Other legislation
Relates to
Status: Current legislation
Text of statute as originally enacted

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 (c. 16) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that imposes requirements for universities and students' unions to protect freedom of speech. The legislation allows speakers to seek compensation for no-platforming through a new statutory tort, empowers the Office for Students to levy fines on infringing institutions, and establishes a new ombudsman or "free speech champion" charged with monitoring cases of no-platforming and academic dismissals. These measures are intended to protect academic staff, students, and visitors who advocate controversial viewpoints.

Contents

After a long parliamentary iter, the bill received royal assent on 11 May 2023 and entered into force. [1]

Background

"No platform" policies aiming to deny certain public figures the opportunity to speak have existed among British students' unions since the 1970s, with the National Union of Students adopting its version in April 1974. These policies formalised an approach developed by the anti-fascist student left in the late 1960s. [2] In the 1990s and 2000s, no-platforming efforts focused on the far-right British National Party as well as Islamist groups, particularly Hizb ut-Tahrir. [3] In the 2010s, however, activist attention came to focus more on public figures viewed as transphobic, and some journalists and politicians argued that no platform policies were being extended well beyond the far right. [4]

2020–21 incidents

After student societies at Oxford University deplatformed the history professor Selina Todd and a former home secretary, Amber Rudd [ needs context ], in February and March 2020, the Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson, warned that the government would move to "defend free speech" if universities failed to do so themselves. [5] HuffPost UK reported soon afterwards that the government was preparing a law to protect freedom of speech in higher education, fulfilling the Conservative Party's manifesto pledge in the 2019 general election to "strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities". A Department for Education spokesperson stated at the time that the government had "made clear that if universities do not uphold free speech, the government will". [6]

In March 2021, David Miller, a professor at the University of Bristol, was put under investigation after making controversial remarks on Zionism, another incident that raised concerns over academic freedom. Lord Parkinson, on behalf of the government, stated in response that universities are "independent and autonomous organisations" with the responsibility to determine the limits of "lawful free speech" for themselves, though the government condemned Miller's comments. [7]

The government confirmed in February 2021 that legislation would soon be brought forward to protect freedom of speech and academic freedom in universities, [8] and published a policy paper outlining its intended approach. [9] Titled the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, the proposed law was formally announced by Queen Elizabeth II in her speech from the throne at the 2021 State Opening of Parliament on 11 May 2021. [10]

Provisions

The bill would create a statutory tort enabling individuals to sue for compensation for losses suffered from an academic institution's failure to protect freedom of speech. For the first time, it would extend universities' obligation to protect freedom of speech, established in section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, to students' unions. [11] In addition, it would institute an office of Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom, informally the "free speech champion", as an ombudsman to sit on the board of the Education Department's Office for Students (OfS) and monitor potential infringements such as deplatforming incidents and politically motivated academic dismissals. [12] [13] The bill would also establish a duty for the OfS to promote freedom of speech, [14] and empower it to fine infringing institutions. [12]

Legislative history

The bill was introduced in the House of Commons by the Education Secretary Gavin Williamson and given its first reading on 12 May 2021. Its second reading took place two months later on 12 July. After being carried over into the 2022–23 parliamentary session, it received a third reading on 13 June 2022 and was introduced in the House of Lords by the Earl Howe the following day. [15]

Members of the House of Lords raised several issues with the bill’s principles and its provisions. These included the Government’s priorities for improving higher education, the likely administrative and financial burden on universities, contradictions with other proposed legislation and Department for Education policy, and the appointment process of the Free Speech Director. The bill passed its third reading in the Lords on 7 December 2022 with 12 amendments agreed, while Clause 4 of the bill was removed.

On 7 February 2023, the House of Commons agreed with 11 of the 12 amendments without a vote, but also approved in a 283-161 vote a motion of the government to reinstate clause 4.

On 21 March 2023 the House of Lords agreed to restore clause 4 to the bill without a vote, but it amended the clause's wording so a civil claim could only be brought by an individual if: 1) they had suffered a loss due to a breach of the freedom of speech and academic freedom duties; and 2) they had first exhausted an existing complaints scheme.

On 2 May 2023, the House of Commons agreed a government motion accepting the Lords amendments that a civil claim could only be brought by an individual if they had suffered a loss due to a breach of freedom of speech duties. However, the motion also proposed an alternative to one of the Lords amendments that defined 'loss' to mean loss of any kind, including reputational damage. The motion also proposed that if a claimant was just seeking an injunction, the provision that legal proceedings could only be brought after an existing complaints scheme had been exhausted would not apply.

On 10 May 2023, the House of Lords considered the Commons amendment to clause 4 to define 'loss' as both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, and to allow an individual to seek a court injunction without first exhausting a complaints scheme. The government tabled a motion agreeing with the Commons amendment. It was agreed without a vote.

The bill received royal assent by King Charles III on 11 May 2023 and became the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. [1]

Reception

Political reception

In the debate following its announcement in the 2021 Queen's Speech, the Labour Party's Shadow Education Secretary, Kate Green, questioned whether the bill would protect Holocaust deniers, and the Conservative former minister Edward Leigh suggested that it could have "unintended consequences", arguing that free speech "should be governed by good manners" rather than laws. [16] The Prime Minister's Office subsequently rebuked Michelle Donelan, the universities minister, for failing to deny categorically that the bill would force universities to host Holocaust deniers. [17]

Media and advocacy groups

A joint letter from the freedom of expression campaign groups Index on Censorship, English PEN, and Article 19 on 11 May 2021 criticised the bill, arguing that the threat of fines was likely to diminish, rather than enhance, freedom of speech at universities, and would create "a chilling effect" on the content of academic teaching and the scope of research. [18] [19]

Writing in The Daily Telegraph , however, the Birkbeck politics professor and Policy Exchange fellow Eric Kaufmann welcomed the bill as recognising that the "university's highest value is the search for truth, not the subjectively-defined emotional safety of students", and noted that it drew on previous recommendations by Policy Exchange. [20]

Higher education sector

Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union, a trade union for higher education staff, described the bill as itself "a serious threat to freedom of speech and academic freedom" and argued that the government had "over-exaggerated" the issues motivating the bill. Spokespeople for the Russell Group of universities and Universities UK stated that the bill should be "proportionate" and avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy, infringing university autonomy, or duplicating existing laws, though the Russell Group shared the government's goal of protecting free expression. [21]

The bill met a mixed reception among academics. Jonathan Grant, a public policy professor at King's College London who authored a 2019 study cited by the government in preparing the legislation, termed the bill "excessive and over the top", and criticised the government for conflating the chilling effect of censorship with "cancel culture". [22] However, the Cambridge philosophy lecturer Arif Ahmed, who led a successful campaign in 2020 to overturn a proposed free speech code at the university demanding respect for others' identities, [23] called the bill "extremely welcome", though he added that "a top-down approach is never going to be a complete solution". [22]

Julian Sladdin, a higher education expert at the law firm Pinsent Masons, noted that persons seeking to make claims under the bill would still need to demonstrate that any breach of duty had caused them legally significant loss, and expressed scepticism that this would "easily translate into successful litigation in most cases". [24]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment limiting government restriction of civil rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. In the original draft of the Bill of Rights, what is now the First Amendment occupied third place. The first two articles were not ratified by the states, so the article on disestablishment and free speech ended up being first.

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause. Sometimes referred to as the override power, it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter. The clause was part of the 'Kitchen Accord' of 1981.

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria. It can be described as the right of a person coming together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and/or defend common interests. Freedom of association is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 22 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work by the International Labour Organization also ensures these rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression</span> American free speech organization

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), formerly called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, is a 501(c)(3) non-profit civil liberties group founded in 1999 with the mission of protecting freedom of speech on college campuses in the United States. FIRE changed its name in June 2022, when it broadened its focus from colleges to freedom of speech throughout American society.

Academic freedom is the right of a teacher to instruct and the right of a student to learn in an academic setting unhampered by outside interference. It may also include the right of academics to engage in social and political criticism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Central European University</span> Private Research University based primarily in Vienna

Central European University is a private research university with a campus in Vienna and a non-degree, research and civic engagement presence in Budapest. The university offers graduate and undergraduate programs in the social sciences and humanities. Admissions are classified as highly selective with an acceptance rate of 13%. All CEU programs and courses are accredited in Austria and the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech in the United States</span>

In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision what to say as well as what not to say. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, prevents only government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government. The right of free speech can, however, be lawfully restricted by time, place and manner in limited circumstances. Some laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary to coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Florida House Bill H-837, also known as HB-837 or The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights, was a proposed bill in 2005 that would have allowed students to establish lawsuits against their professors and university for perceived intolerance of the student's beliefs. The bill could have also required professors to teach concepts that may have contradicted established facts, if the concept was considered a "serious scholarly" theory.

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), is a landmark court decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment's federal protection of religious free exercise incorporates via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and so applies to state governments too.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Bill of Rights</span> First ten amendments to the US Constitution

The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the Northwest Ordinance (1787), the English Bill of Rights (1689), and Magna Carta (1215).

No Platform, in the UK, is a form of student boycott where a person or organisation is denied a platform to speak. The British National Union of Students (NUS) established its No Platform policy in April 1974. Like other No Platform policies, it asserts that no proscribed person or organisation should be given a platform to speak, nor should a union officer share a platform with them. The policy traditionally applies to entities that the NUS considers racist or fascist, most notably the British National Party, although the NUS and its liberation campaigns have policies refusing platforms to other people or organisations. The policy does not extend to students' unions who are part of NUS, although similar policies have also been adopted by its constituent unions.

<i>Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties</i> Nonfiction book by law professor Christopher M. Fairman

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties is a nonfiction book by law professor Christopher M. Fairman about freedom of speech, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, censorship, and use of the word fuck in society. The book was first published in 2009 by Sphinx as a follow-up on the author's article "Fuck", published in 2007 in the Cardozo Law Review. It cites studies from academics in social science, psychoanalysis, and linguistics. Fairman establishes that most current usages of the word have connotations distinct from its meaning of sexual intercourse. The book discusses the efforts of conservatives in the United States to censor the word from common parlance. The author says that legal precedent regarding its use is unclear because of contradictory court decisions. Fairman argues that once citizens allow the government to restrict the use of specific words, this will infringe upon freedom of thought.

Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deplatforming</span> Administrative or political action to deny access to a platform to express opinions

Deplatforming, also called no-platforming, is a form of Internet censorship of an individual or group by preventing them from posting on the platforms they use to share their information/ideas. This typically involves suspension, outright bans, or reducing spread.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020</span> UK law relating to internal trade

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. Its purpose is to prevent internal trade barriers within the UK, and to restrict the legislative powers of the devolved administrations in economic policy. It is one of several pieces of legislation concerning trade that were passed following the European Union membership referendum, as after Brexit the UK is no longer directly subject to EU law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2021 State Opening of Parliament</span> Start of session of UK Parliament

A State Opening of Parliament took place on 11 May 2021. Queen Elizabeth II opened the second session of the 58th Parliament with the traditional Queen's Speech. The event was significant as it involved many restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Education (No. 2) Act 1986</span> UK education law

The Education Act 1986 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made various legal changes to education in the UK. Though introduced to the House of Commons by his immediate successor Kenneth Baker, the Act was prepared by Margaret Thatcher's second Education Secretary, Keith Joseph, an ideological opponent of "statism" who sought to empower parents against local bureaucrats.

The federal government of the United States has limited authority to act on education, and education policy serves to support the education systems of state and local governments through funding and regulation of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education. The Department of Education serves as the primary government organization responsible for enacting federal education policy in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bill of Rights Bill</span> Proposed UK human rights legislation

The Bill of Rights Bill was a proposed Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom that sought to replace the Human Rights Act 1998. It was introduced to the House of Commons by Dominic Raab, the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Secretary of State for Justice, on 22 June 2022.

References

  1. 1 2 "Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill: Progress of the Bill". Parliament of the United Kingdom . 12 May 2023.
  2. ↑ Smith, Evan (2020). No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and the Limits of Free Speech. Abingdon: Routledge. p. 86. ISBN   9780429847813.
  3. ↑ Smith 2020 , p. 205.
  4. ↑ Smith 2020 , p. 201.
  5. ↑ Yorke, Harry (6 March 2020). "Government looks to strengthen free speech on campus after Oxford's no-platforming of Amber Rudd" . The Daily Telegraph . Retrieved 13 May 2021.
  6. ↑ Waugh, Paul (7 March 2020). "Ministers Preparing New Law To 'Protect Freedom Of Speech' At Universities". HuffPost UK . Retrieved 13 May 2021.
  7. ↑ "Bristol University: Professor David Miller investigation launched". BBC News. 17 March 2021. Retrieved 14 May 2021.
  8. ↑ Weale, Sally (16 February 2021). "Proposed free speech law will make English universities liable for breaches". The Guardian . Retrieved 13 May 2021.
  9. ↑ "Higher education: free speech and academic freedom". gov.uk . 16 February 2021. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  10. ↑ "Queen's Speech 2021". gov.uk . 11 May 2021. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
  11. ↑ Morgan, John (12 May 2021). "English universities fear legal minefield under free speech bill" . Times Higher Education . Retrieved 13 May 2021.
  12. 1 2 "Universities could face fines over free speech breaches". BBC News. 12 May 2021. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
  13. ↑ Higgins, James (15 February 2021). "Free speech champion to tackle 'censoring and silencing' at universities". University Business. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
  14. ↑ "Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill" (PDF). parliament.uk. 12 May 2021. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
  15. ↑ "Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill". parliament.uk. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
  16. ↑ Morris, Sophie (13 May 2021). "No protection for Holocaust deniers under new free speech laws, says Williamson". Evening Standard . Retrieved 13 May 2021.
  17. ↑ Merrick, Rob (14 May 2021). "No 10 slaps down universities minister for saying 'Free Speech Bill' will allow Holocaust deniers to speak". The Independent . Retrieved 15 May 2021.
  18. ↑ Adams, Richard (12 May 2021). "Campus free speech law in England 'likely to have opposite effect'". The Guardian . Retrieved 13 May 2021.
  19. ↑ "Index shares its concerns about the Academic Freedom Bill". Index on Censorship. 11 May 2021. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
  20. ↑ Kaufmann, Eric (12 May 2021). "The Freedom of Speech Bill is a huge step towards saving the soul of university education" . The Daily Telegraph . Retrieved 13 May 2021.
  21. ↑ Tidman, Zoe (14 May 2021). "Government 'exaggerating threat to freedom of speech to push through new laws', says university union". The Independent . Retrieved 15 May 2021.
  22. 1 2 Langford, Eleanor (15 May 2021). "Academics And Officials Have Questioned The Evidence Behind Gavin Williamson's "Excessive" University Free Speech Bill". PoliticsHome . Retrieved 16 May 2021.
  23. ↑ Turner, Camilla (9 December 2020). "Cambridge dons win free speech row as they defeat new 'authoritarian' rules" . The Daily Telegraph . Retrieved 17 May 2021.
  24. ↑ "Universities and student unions in England to be required to promote free speech". Out-Law. Pinsent Masons. 14 May 2021. Retrieved 14 May 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.