Olivia
Online
Committee for Academic Freedom
@ComAcFreedom
The law has changed. The culture hasn’t. Exposing threats to academic freedom in UK universities — and pushing institutions to meet their free-speech duties.
London
Joined October 2023
615 Following
3.7K Followers
1.8K Posts
Pinned Tweet
🚨 BREAKING: Another win for #academicfreedom!
After intervention from the Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF), Plymouth Marjon University has restored the emeritus title of Dr David Harris, which was withdrawn last year after he published a critique of critical race theory.
Internal emails secured via a Subject Access Request (SAR) show senior administrators describing Professor Harris’s research as “controversial” and suggesting the university should “sever ties”.
CAF challenged the decision as procedurally improper and inconsistent with the terms under which his emeritus title had originally been awarded. The university has now reversed course and reinstated the title.
As our Research Manager Freddie Attenborough told The Telegraph:
“The episode raises serious questions about how easily lawful academic research can end up being labelled ‘controversial’ inside university administration, with damaging consequences for the individuals involved.”
Professor Harris isn’t the first emeritus scholar we’ve had to defend — and we doubt he’ll be the last.
🙏 Much of CAF’s work, from supporting members in difficult cases to holding universities to account for breaches of #freespeech law, is only possible because of donations from supporters. If you’d like to help us continue and expand this work in defence of academic freedom, you can donate here:
https://t.co/gnkRJyPZ0y
📩 Subscribe to our newsletter to see how CAF is pushing back against free speech breaches across UK universities:
https://t.co/zwSgRONPLN
📰 Read the full story in The Telegraph here:
https://t.co/tl0Seq0Zek
The Government has cancelled the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) of Cenk Uygur, a controversial left-wing US political commentator, preventing him from speaking at an Oxford Union event.
This appears to be the first high-profile instance in which the UK’s immigration rules — which confer broad and discretionary powers on the Home Secretary to exclude individuals whose presence is deemed “not conducive to the public good” — have been used to prevent a speaker from appearing before a university debating society.
The issue for the Government seems to be not that the speech in question would have been unlawful, but that the speaker’s participation could exacerbate antisemitic tensions. In that respect, the rationale is similar to the type of risk assessment familiar from Prevent, which focuses on reducing the influence of “radicalisers” on “susceptible audiences”. Yet even in the context of Prevent, the Government’s own guidance does not assume that such risks should ordinarily lead to exclusion.
In circumstances such as these, should universities and debating institutions therefore have an opportunity to explain how the event would be conducted, and how controversial claims would be challenged and scrutinised, before the Government makes any final ETA decision?
CAF Research Manager Freddie Attenborough for @CapX:
https://t.co/UR99udYNiJ
@Mishi_Mo Thanks Michael.
STATEMENT: The Government has cancelled the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) of controversial left-wing US political commentator Cenk Uygur, preventing him from entering the UK to attend speaking engagements. Uygur, the host of the Young Turks online political talk show, was due to appear at SXSW London and had also been scheduled to speak at an Oxford Union event organised by University of Oxford students.
The apparent legal basis lies in the UK’s Immigration Rules, which confer broad discretionary powers on the Home Secretary to cancel a travel authorisation where an individual’s conduct, character, associations or other circumstances are judged to make their presence in the UK “not conducive to the public good”. Unlike a criminal sanction, the power does not require proof that a person has committed an offence, or that the speech they intend to deliver would itself be unlawful.
Although ETA cancellations have been used before, this appears to be the first high-profile instance in which the regime has prevented a speaker from appearing before a university debating society.
Many will find Uygur’s views deeply unpleasant. In commentary on Gaza, he has described Israel’s conduct as “genocide”, “barbaric” and “savage”, and accused it of using Jews as “human shields”. While Uygur insists on a distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism, critics have repeatedly accused him of propagating antisemitic tropes.
But the Oxford Union is not just another events venue. It is one of the UK’s most important student debating institutions and has long played a distinctive role in academic and intellectual life by fostering adversarial debate on controversial and contested questions.
As Arwa Elrayess, the Union’s president, observed in critical response to the “concerning” decision, the organisation “was founded on a simple principle: that ideas should be challenged through debate, not ignored or silenced”.
While CAF takes no position on Uygur’s views, we are concerned about the transparency surrounding the exercise of these powers where they affect institutions dedicated to debate and intellectual exchange.
Those concerns are heightened by the fact that there appears to be no suggestion Uygur intended to engage in unlawful speech during his visit. Rather, the issue appears to be whether his participation could exacerbate antisemitic tensions.
Even in the context of the Prevent Duty, where universities must have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism, the Government’s own guidance does not assume that concerns about the possible downstream effects of lawful speech should automatically lead to exclusion. Instead, it states that “in most cases” such risks can be mitigated “without shutting down speech” through proportionate measures such as careful chairing, challenge, rights of reply, security arrangements and clear ground rules.
Where the Government is considering the use of immigration powers to prevent an invited speaker from appearing at a major debating institution such as the Oxford Union, the host institution should be given an opportunity to explain the format of the event and the opportunities for challenge that would be available before a final decision is made.
If the Home Office nevertheless concludes that exclusion is necessary, it should provide a clear account of the legal and evidential rationale for that conclusion — if not publicly, then at least to the host institution.
The state should be slow to substitute executive exclusion for argument, debate and critical scrutiny, particularly in settings whose purpose is precisely to examine controversial claims.
@libertyhq @IndexCensorship @SpeechUnion @JFSteinfeld @ObhishekSaha
STATEMENT: The Government has cancelled the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) of controversial left-wing US political commentator Cenk Uygur, preventing him from entering the UK to attend speaking engagements. Uygur, the host of the Young Turks online political talk show, was due to appear at SXSW London and had also been scheduled to speak at an Oxford Union event organised by University of Oxford students.
The apparent legal basis lies in the UK’s Immigration Rules, which confer broad discretionary powers on the Home Secretary to cancel a travel authorisation where an individual’s conduct, character, associations or other circumstances are judged to make their presence in the UK “not conducive to the public good”. Unlike a criminal sanction, the power does not require proof that a person has committed an offence, or that the speech they intend to deliver would itself be unlawful.
Although ETA cancellations have been used before, this appears to be the first high-profile instance in which the regime has prevented a speaker from appearing before a university debating society.
Many will find Uygur’s views deeply unpleasant. In commentary on Gaza, he has described Israel’s conduct as “genocide”, “barbaric” and “savage”, and accused it of using Jews as “human shields”. While Uygur insists on a distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism, critics have repeatedly accused him of propagating antisemitic tropes.
But the Oxford Union is not just another events venue. It is one of the UK’s most important student debating institutions and has long played a distinctive role in academic and intellectual life by fostering adversarial debate on controversial and contested questions.
As Arwa Elrayess, the Union’s president, observed in critical response to the “concerning” decision, the organisation “was founded on a simple principle: that ideas should be challenged through debate, not ignored or silenced”.
While CAF takes no position on Uygur’s views, we are concerned about the transparency surrounding the exercise of these powers where they affect institutions dedicated to debate and intellectual exchange.
Those concerns are heightened by the fact that there appears to be no suggestion Uygur intended to engage in unlawful speech during his visit. Rather, the issue appears to be whether his participation could exacerbate antisemitic tensions.
Even in the context of the Prevent Duty, where universities must have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism, the Government’s own guidance does not assume that concerns about the possible downstream effects of lawful speech should automatically lead to exclusion. Instead, it states that “in most cases” such risks can be mitigated “without shutting down speech” through proportionate measures such as careful chairing, challenge, rights of reply, security arrangements and clear ground rules.
Where the Government is considering the use of immigration powers to prevent an invited speaker from appearing at a major debating institution such as the Oxford Union, the host institution should be given an opportunity to explain the format of the event and the opportunities for challenge that would be available before a final decision is made.
If the Home Office nevertheless concludes that exclusion is necessary, it should provide a clear account of the legal and evidential rationale for that conclusion — if not publicly, then at least to the host institution.
The state should be slow to substitute executive exclusion for argument, debate and critical scrutiny, particularly in settings whose purpose is precisely to examine controversial claims.
@libertyhq @IndexCensorship @SpeechUnion @JFSteinfeld @ObhishekSaha
🚨 Following tip-offs from supporters, CAF has intervened with both a prestigious UK university and a leading learned society over harassment frameworks that misstate the law and risk chilling lawful speech.
In slightly different ways, both presented harassment as though it could be determined largely from the complainant’s perspective, while omitting two key elements of the statutory test: the wider circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have had the alleged effect.
And we know from our casework where that leads: vexatious complaints about perfectly lawful speech, and investigation and disciplinary processes that too often become the punishment.
We have decided not to name either institution because, in both cases, we are engaging constructively and hope to secure the changes necessary to bring their materials into legal and regulatory compliance while better safeguarding freedom of expression and protected belief.
If you’re an academic, student, or member of the wider academic community and have encountered similar training materials, conduct codes or policies, CAF can offer advice or, where appropriate, make representations on your behalf. Contact us in confidence at: [email protected]
Full story here:
https://t.co/vZdmeoRJvS
Full story here:
https://t.co/vZdmeoRJvS
🚨 Following tip-offs from supporters, CAF has intervened with both a prestigious UK university and a leading learned society over harassment frameworks that misstate the law and risk chilling lawful speech.
In slightly different ways, both presented harassment as though it could be determined largely from the complainant’s perspective, while omitting two key elements of the statutory test: the wider circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have had the alleged effect.
And we know from our casework where that leads: vexatious complaints about perfectly lawful speech, and investigation and disciplinary processes that too often become the punishment.
We have decided not to name either institution because, in both cases, we are engaging constructively and hope to secure the changes necessary to bring their materials into legal and regulatory compliance while better safeguarding freedom of expression and protected belief.
If you’re an academic, student, or member of the wider academic community and have encountered similar training materials, conduct codes or policies, CAF can offer advice or, where appropriate, make representations on your behalf. Contact us in confidence at: [email protected]
CAF’s monthly newsletter for May is out today, bringing you a snapshot of our latest investigations and live casework, including: our intervention over speech-chilling harassment frameworks at two major UK institutions; our briefing to ministers and parliamentarians on the importance of the new OfS free speech complaints scheme; and our successful intervention prompting the University of Sussex to correct a misstatement of the Prevent duty.
https://t.co/RCS03LZX6x
Much of our work begins with information shared by academics and students, and we are currently handling a growing number of cases. If you have concerns about ideologised training, interference in teaching or research, or wider free speech issues on campus, we would be glad to hear from you. Contact us at: [email protected], or through our secure reporting portal here:
https://t.co/AMfJLRukE2
CAF’s monthly newsletter for May is out today, bringing you a snapshot of our latest investigations and live casework, including: our intervention over speech-chilling harassment frameworks at two major UK institutions; our briefing to ministers and parliamentarians on the importance of the new OfS free speech complaints scheme; and our successful intervention prompting the University of Sussex to correct a misstatement of the Prevent duty.
https://t.co/RCS03LZX6x
Much of our work begins with information shared by academics and students, and we are currently handling a growing number of cases. If you have concerns about ideologised training, interference in teaching or research, or wider free speech issues on campus, we would be glad to hear from you. Contact us at: [email protected], or through our secure reporting portal here:
https://t.co/AMfJLRukE2
🚨BREAKING: Following representations from CAF and a coalition of free speech organisations — including Academics for Academic Freedom and the London Universities' Council for Academic Freedom — the Government has confirmed that the recent High Court ruling in the University of Sussex v Office for Students case will not affect full implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.
The letter, which was organised by Professor @ObhishekSaha, warned ministers that some university leaders were seeking to use the judgment — in which the OfS lost on several grounds — as a reason to resist the commencement of key new enforcement provisions in the Act, including the free speech complaints scheme.
Skills Minister Baroness Jacqui Smith has now replied, stating in unexpectedly firm and unequivocal language that the judgment “does not impact” the Government’s plans to commence the Act’s key provisions. The complaints scheme therefore remains on course to open on 1 September 2026.
This is reassuring news. The scheme will provide a free-to-use route for academics, external speakers and non-student members to seek redress when their free speech or academic freedom rights are infringed. For many, it will offer a far more realistic remedy than the delays, costs and legal complexity associated with Employment Tribunal proceedings brought under the Equality Act 2010.
Without an effective enforcement mechanism, universities face little practical incentive to align their internal policies with their legal duties. At the very least, the new scheme therefore offers the prospect of a regulatory framework capable of giving meaningful effect to universities’ statutory duties to secure #freedomofspeech within the law and protect academic freedom.
@Fox_Claire @joshxhowie @MaximumCities @SpeechUnion @MShipworth @drianpace @HJoyceGender @AFFSUK @AFAF_freespeech
1/ The complaints scheme is designed to do what the OfS fine of Sussex, and the subsequent litigation, could not: offer individuals a quick, low-stakes and free-to-use route to redress when their free speech or academic freedom rights are infringed.
Excellent. Bloody good job @ComAcFreedom
🚨BREAKING: Following representations from CAF and a coalition of free speech organisations — including Academics for Academic Freedom and the London Universities' Council for Academic Freedom — the Government has confirmed that the recent High Court ruling in the University of Sussex v Office for Students case will not affect full implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.
The letter, which was organised by Professor @ObhishekSaha, warned ministers that some university leaders were seeking to use the judgment — in which the OfS lost on several grounds — as a reason to resist the commencement of key new enforcement provisions in the Act, including the free speech complaints scheme.
Skills Minister Baroness Jacqui Smith has now replied, stating in unexpectedly firm and unequivocal language that the judgment “does not impact” the Government’s plans to commence the Act’s key provisions. The complaints scheme therefore remains on course to open on 1 September 2026.
This is reassuring news. The scheme will provide a free-to-use route for academics, external speakers and non-student members to seek redress when their free speech or academic freedom rights are infringed. For many, it will offer a far more realistic remedy than the delays, costs and legal complexity associated with Employment Tribunal proceedings brought under the Equality Act 2010.
Without an effective enforcement mechanism, universities face little practical incentive to align their internal policies with their legal duties. At the very least, the new scheme therefore offers the prospect of a regulatory framework capable of giving meaningful effect to universities’ statutory duties to secure #freedomofspeech within the law and protect academic freedom.
@Fox_Claire @joshxhowie @MaximumCities @SpeechUnion @MShipworth @drianpace @HJoyceGender @AFFSUK @AFAF_freespeech
A group of students from Ghent University has presented a petition with over 2,000 signatures to the Rector, Petra De Sutter, in protest against the appointment of American philosopher Nathan Cofnas.
The signatories claim that “Cofnas’s hiring is to be stopped”, arguing that his work on race, heredity and intelligence constitutes “blatant racism” and raises concerns about the application of the university’s ethical guidelines.
The petition marks the latest escalation in a sustained campaign against Cofnas’s appointment. Earlier this year, the Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) joined academics and free speech groups in writing to De Sutter, urging the university to resist calls for Cofnas’s removal on account of his controversial but lawful scholarship and public interventions.
While CAF neither endorses nor opposes any specific claims made by Cofnas, it is a sine qua non of academic freedom that scholars must be free to put forward controversial or provocative arguments without fear of losing their employment. Universities cannot function as institutions of free inquiry if organised campaigns are permitted to veto appointments simply because research is considered offensive, heterodox or morally objectionable.
Once again, therefore, we urge the Rector to protect Dr Cofnas’s freedom of expression and belief and, in so doing, uphold the principles of academic freedom on which the university depends.
Full story:
https://t.co/VZiSDFQ2HB
A group of students from Ghent University has presented a petition with over 2,000 signatures to the Rector, Petra De Sutter, in protest against the appointment of American philosopher Nathan Cofnas.
The signatories claim that “Cofnas’s hiring is to be stopped”, arguing that his work on race, heredity and intelligence constitutes “blatant racism” and raises concerns about the application of the university’s ethical guidelines.
The petition marks the latest escalation in a sustained campaign against Cofnas’s appointment. Earlier this year, the Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) joined academics and free speech groups in writing to De Sutter, urging the university to resist calls for Cofnas’s removal on account of his controversial but lawful scholarship and public interventions.
While CAF neither endorses nor opposes any specific claims made by Cofnas, it is a sine qua non of academic freedom that scholars must be free to put forward controversial or provocative arguments without fear of losing their employment. Universities cannot function as institutions of free inquiry if organised campaigns are permitted to veto appointments simply because research is considered offensive, heterodox or morally objectionable.
Once again, therefore, we urge the Rector to protect Dr Cofnas’s freedom of expression and belief and, in so doing, uphold the principles of academic freedom on which the university depends.
Full story:
https://t.co/VZiSDFQ2HB
In a win for academic freedom, a district court in Texas has ordered that Idris Robinson, a professor terminated for speaking at a contentious event about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, must get his job back as his court case proceeds.
https://t.co/bw8N71qetU
The Office for Students (OfS) has confirmed that it will not appeal the Sussex judicial review ruling over the Kathleen Stock (@Docstockk) case.
This is a disappointing decision, but not entirely unexpected, since victory on all grounds was always unlikely. It does, however, leave open the possibility that the soon-to-be-established OfS #freespeech complaints scheme may face greater pressure to correct institutional overreach if universities over-read the judgment as granting wider latitude to restrict lawful speech than it in fact does.
Although the OfS says the judgment “broadly endorsed” its approach to “freedom of speech within the law”, the court’s reasoning leaves unresolved questions that will become increasingly important as the new complaints scheme approaches.
At the heart of that dispute is a deceptively technical but hugely consequential question: must universities actively secure lawful speech wherever reasonably practicable — including, as the OfS currently argues, by simply not interfering — or, as some have interpreted the judgment to suggest, may they restrict speech whenever restriction can be justified as proportionate in the name of preventing offence, harm or dignity-based harassment?
In our latest piece, we examine what the judgment does (and does not) mean for the future of higher education free speech regulation.
https://t.co/JIAfy0fHQ8
The Office for Students (OfS) has confirmed that it will not appeal the Sussex judicial review ruling over the Kathleen Stock (@Docstockk) case.
This is a disappointing decision, but not entirely unexpected, since victory on all grounds was always unlikely. It does, however, leave open the possibility that the soon-to-be-established OfS #freespeech complaints scheme may face greater pressure to correct institutional overreach if universities over-read the judgment as granting wider latitude to restrict lawful speech than it in fact does.
Although the OfS says the judgment “broadly endorsed” its approach to “freedom of speech within the law”, the court’s reasoning leaves unresolved questions that will become increasingly important as the new complaints scheme approaches.
At the heart of that dispute is a deceptively technical but hugely consequential question: must universities actively secure lawful speech wherever reasonably practicable — including, as the OfS currently argues, by simply not interfering — or, as some have interpreted the judgment to suggest, may they restrict speech whenever restriction can be justified as proportionate in the name of preventing offence, harm or dignity-based harassment?
In our latest piece, we examine what the judgment does (and does not) mean for the future of higher education free speech regulation.
https://t.co/JIAfy0fHQ8
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
240.1M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.6M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
108.7M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
106.9M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.2M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.1M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.5M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
86.7M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
80.5M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.1M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.3M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.6M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
68.4M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.4M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
60.9M followers
X
@x
60.9M followers
CNN Breaking News
@cnnbrk
59.9M followers