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
- Tweets2.1K
- Following618
- Followers6.5K
- Likes1.1K
Pinned Tweet
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: In 2023, David Harris, Professor Emeritus at Plymouth Marjon University, became one of the first academics to raise serious questions about the scholarly standards of Professor Jason Arday’s published work, shortly after Arday had been appointed Professor of Sociology of Education at the University of Cambridge.
Since Arday’s death, Harris’s role in scrutinising his work and highlighting possible evidence of plagiarism has made him the target of online abuse and personal smears, including potentially defamatory public allegations that he was motivated by racism. In this interview with the Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF), he gives his own account of what happened, explains how he came to investigate Arday’s work, and reveals previously unreported details about his attempts to raise his concerns privately with senior figures at Cambridge.
Among them was Professor Hilary Cremin, Head of Cambridge’s Faculty of Education, whom Harris approached with detailed concerns about Arday’s scholarship. He recounts Cremin’s response, including her apology for the tone and manner of emails in which Arday threatened to report him to the police for harassment, and her invitation to Harris to visit Cambridge “for tea” to discuss their differences.
But Cremin was not the only senior figure at Cambridge whom Harris approached. He reveals that he separately took his concerns to the University’s Head of Policy, Governance and Integrity, only to be told that the issues he had identified pre-dated Arday’s arrival at Cambridge and were therefore not the University’s responsibility.
The interview also sheds new light on suggestions that scrutiny of Arday’s work formed part of a wider campaign against him — a “vicious campaign”, as Diane Abbott has described it. Harris is categorical that he had no contact whatsoever with Dr Nathan Cofnas, and says that his own investigation was conducted independently, privately and through conventional academic channels.
His account raises important institutional questions about academic scrutiny, research integrity — and what Cambridge knew about concerns surrounding Arday’s work years before they became a matter of public controversy.
CAF has intervened on behalf of a former Cardiff University professor who was denied emeritus status after criticising senior management over a cost-saving institutional restructuring, and who is now seeking to prevent the University from using his published research in the next Research Excellence Framework, whose results help determine the allocation of billions of pounds in public research funding.
afcomm.org.uk/2026/10/29/car…
3
50
Whatever one’s views on Dr Nathan Cofnas’s forthcoming talk at Oriel College, Oxford, organised by the Oxon Universities’ Reform Society, this statement by 49 members of the College’s Senior Common Room, acting in their personal capacities, is a breath of fresh air.
The signatories condemn Cofnas’s views on race and intelligence in the strongest terms. Yet they also recognise the College’s legal obligations to protect freedom of speech and, crucially, make no demands that the event be cancelled, its organisers sanctioned or Cofnas prevented from speaking.
Freedom of speech cuts both ways, and between intellectual agreement and the exercise of a heckler’s veto lies a vast space on campus for disagreement, criticism, evidence and argument, whether courteous or combative.
Full statement here:
docs.google.com/document/u/0…
The Office for Students’ new free-speech complaints scheme gives academics a free-to-use route for challenging restrictions on lawful speech and #academicfreedom.
For the first time, eligible complainants can ask the regulator to determine whether a university has breached its statutory #freespeech duties. Where a complaint is justified or partly justified, the OfS can recommend meaningful redress, including restoration of an invitation to speak, reinstatement of a research programme, changes to university policies and financial payments to complainants.
CAF has created a new Casework Support page designed to help ensure that cases reaching the OfS are as clearly framed and carefully prepared as possible. It includes practical guidance on getting a complaint right, why identifying the relevant issues from the earliest internal university stage matters, and how CAF can help.
afcomm.org.uk/afcomm-org-uk-…
There’s also a quick interactive checker that takes you through no more than nine questions about your circumstances, explains why each matters, and gives an initial indication of whether the OfS scheme may apply and when it may be worth contacting CAF. For those who want to understand the law beneath the scheme, our legal guide explains the statutory duties underpinning it.
If you think your freedom of speech or academic freedom is being restricted, email CAF at manager@afcomm.org.uk
And please do spread the word. There will be academics across the country who do not yet know that the landscape changed this week, including some at institutions where the new complaints scheme may not receive quite the prominence any of us would like.
Concerning to see masked pro-Palestinian activists at City St George’s University of London, using loudspeakers to chant for the sacking of Professor Michael Ben-Gad, apparently because he — an Israeli citizen — served in the IDF in the early 1980s.
The demonstration took place in a main circulation area of the University Building at Northampton Square, through which anyone entering or leaving would have to pass.
Other allegedly pro-Israeli academics have recently been singled out in an Instagram campaign, with their names and photographs circulated alongside accusations of racism and Islamophobia that implicitly question why the university continues to employ them.
Under the newly strengthened Higher Education and Research Act 2017, English universities have a statutory duty to take reasonably practicable steps to secure the freedom of speech of their staff and students — a duty that also protects students’ rights to protest against academics, criticise their views and call for their dismissal.
But what students are legally entitled to say is not quite the same as what universities, as centres of scholarship and intellectual provocation, should expect from members of their community.
Central to the Humboldtian ideal of the university is the notion that even the sharpest political disagreements, and the personal enmities they engender, should be handled with civility, rather than allowed to descend into crude public denunciations and demands for someone’s sacking.
Sadly, this tendency is by no means confined to one side of the Israel–Palestine debate.
The Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) knows of a recent case at King’s College London where a pro-Palestinian academic faced a hostile campaign following a student complaint about a seminar on the history of Palestine and Israel. Although the university closed two investigations without taking action, posters appeared on campus accusing the academic of supporting terrorism and demanding their sacking. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the academic subsequently described how persistent harassment undermined their professional confidence and made them think twice about what they could safely say in their teaching.
The political positions of Ben-Gad and the KCL academic may differ, but the underlying dynamic of cancellation is all too similar. And beyond the direct impact on each, hundreds — perhaps thousands — of their colleagues take note and silently resolve to keep quiet rather than risk becoming the next target.
Statutory protections may be necessary to secure academic freedom at an institutional level. But they are not sufficient to sustain it in practice. For that, universities depend on something no legislation can manufacture: a culture of intellectual tolerance and a willingness to engage with people whose views we profoundly reject.
A rare Equality Act 2010 challenge to a referral under Prevent, the UK’s counter-terrorism programme for identifying and responding to suspected signs of radicalisation, has ended with a County Court finding that a school unlawfully discriminated against a 13-year-old Muslim pupil.
Although a first-instance decision, the ruling has important implications for universities.
As well as foregrounding a risk inherent in Prevent’s precautionary referral process, that the lawful expression of staff and students may be recast as evidence of radicalisation through a linguistic gloss unsupported by the underlying facts, it points to a potentially underused route to legal redress where such reinterpretations result in discriminatory treatment because of a protected philosophical belief.
CAF Research Manager Freddie Attenborough writes for Verfassungsblog, the leading European platform for constitutional law and public law commentary:
verfassungsblog.de/counter-t…
CAF is deeply concerned by the Home Office’s decision to cancel Andreas Malm’s Electronic Travel Authorisation, preventing the climate academic and associate professor of human ecology at Lund University in Sweden from travelling to Britain for a series of speaking engagements this week.
In a liberal democracy, the state should be exceptionally reluctant to substitute executive exclusion for argument and debate in settings whose purpose is to explore controversial claims.
Read more and sign the petition calling on the Home Secretary to reconsider the decision here:
afcomm.org.uk/2026/11/02/caf…
🚨 BREAKING: The Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) has written to Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) on behalf of two senior academics who are refusing to complete mandatory training requiring assent to contested theoretical propositions about “unconscious bias”, potentially jeopardising their career progression and professional opportunities.
The dispute concerns an assessment within What is Unconscious Bias? — part of QMUL’s Introducing Inclusion course, which is “mandatory for all staff”.
The assessment requires participants to affirm that “unconscious biases help us to react quickly but can cloud our judgement”, and to identify accepting that “we have unconscious biases” as helpful. The accompanying feedback declares that such acceptance is “the first step to combating their negative effects”.
Informed by their scholarly research, the academics we’re supporting dispute these propositions and have refused to complete the assessment rather than give answers contrary to their convictions.
Under the assessment’s all-or-nothing marking system, refusing to affirm both propositions caps a participant’s score at 60%, below the 80% pass mark. Yet passing is a condition of eligibility for promotion, professorial review, including decisions on remuneration, and participation in recruitment and promotion panels.
Although influential in social-justice-oriented scholarship, the concept of unconscious bias is contested within psychology, with researchers disagreeing about what it means, whether the processes in question are necessarily unconscious, and whether they exert a causal influence on judgement. Peer-reviewed research also questions whether acknowledging such biases improves behaviour.
QMUL is of course entitled to provide training on its preferred theory of bias. But it remains just that: a theory. When such training is mandatory, requires staff to pass an assessment, and is tied to professional opportunities, there is a clear risk of compelling academics to affirm propositions they simply don’t believe.
That’s why we’ve proposed a simple solution: amend the assessment so that academics who don’t all think alike can demonstrate understanding without having to endorse its underlying assumptions.
Should QMUL decline to address these concerns, CAF is prepared to fund legal counsel to assist the academics, should they wish, in pursuing an internal grievance and subsequent complaint to the OfS.
We believe there are strong grounds for such a complaint, given that such training may breach QMUL’s statutory duties to secure freedom of speech and academic freedom. Consistent with Article 10 protections against compelled expression, the Office for Students has also warned that universities “should not require training or induction that imposes a requirement on the person completing the training actively to endorse any viewpoint or value-judgement”.
Sadly, this isn’t an isolated case. As CAF knows from its casework, universities often impose mandatory training in which the distinction between “understanding” and “endorsing” contested ideas becomes blurred.
That’s why we hope this intervention marks the beginning of a wider pushback against compelled intellectual conformity on campus.
If you’re an academic with similar concerns about mandatory training at your institution, get in touch. CAF can assess your case and, where appropriate, secure specialist legal advice and raise the matter with your university on your behalf.
Contact us at manager@afcomm.org.uk
Full story via The Telegraph:
telegraph.co.uk/gift/1060b26…
CAF’s dedicated Legal Fighting Fund enables us to provide casework and legal support to academics and students facing professional or disciplinary consequences for exercising their lawful right to freedom of speech.
Thanks to the generosity of our supporters, the fund has grown, enabling us to draw more extensively on specialist external legal counsel and strengthen our interventions on behalf of those facing stressful and sometimes hostile working environments, prolonged disciplinary investigations, threats to their careers, and other forms of institutional pressure for speaking out, expressing unpopular beliefs or, sometimes, of course, simply doing their jobs as scholars.
Donations to the fund are ring-fenced exclusively for this work. We are enormously grateful to everyone who has contributed, but sustaining and expanding this support is essential if we are to continue challenging universities when they overstep the mark.
If you can, please help us build on that progress by donating below:
donorbox.org/support-the-com…
STATEMENT: CAF is deeply concerned by the Home Office’s decision to cancel the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) of Andreas Malm, the climate academic and associate professor of human ecology at Lund University in Sweden, preventing him from travelling to Britain for a series of speaking engagements next week.
Malm had been due to speak at a conference organised by Tribune magazine, alongside a co-founder of the proscribed organisation Palestine Action. According to The Guardian, “They were expected to discuss the impact of the ban, including its effect on the author Sally Rooney”, who has withdrawn her books from sale in the UK over her support for the group. Malm was also due to attend an academic conference and take part in a BBC interview.
The apparent legal basis is paragraph ETA 5.3 of the UK’s Immigration Rules, which requires the cancellation of 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.
No doubt many people will find Malm’s views controversial. In How to Blow Up a Pipeline, he has defended sabotage of fossil-fuel infrastructure as a form of climate activism. He has also described Hamas’s attacks of 7 October 2023 as an “act of liberation”.
Such statements are clearly open to vigorous criticism. But the key word there is “criticism”, not “cancellation”.
Context matters to Malm’s case. In Lord Carlile v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2014), the Supreme Court considered the exclusion of an Iranian opposition figure invited to meet parliamentarians at Westminster — and although the challenge failed, the Court recognised that the identity of the audience and the nature of the venue mattered when assessing interference with freedom of expression, including the right to receive information and ideas.
Nowhere is this more acute than at an academic conference, whose very purpose is to expose arguments and evidence to critical scrutiny.
The @tribunemagazine event, too, organised by one of Britain’s oldest socialist publications, would have provided an opportunity for participants to discuss and scrutinise the consequences of the Government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action, particularly while the legality of that decision remains before the courts.
Perhaps the Home Office has reasons for cancelling Malm’s ETA that have not been made public. But that is part of the problem. When draconian immigration powers are used to prevent an internationally renowned academic from participating in lawful public debate, the Government should be prepared to do more than invoke the “public good” by way of explanation.
The issue at stake here goes beyond the politics of left and right. In a liberal democracy, the state should be exceptionally reluctant to substitute executive exclusion for argument and debate in settings whose purpose is to explore controversial claims.
A petition has been organised calling on the Prime Minister and Home Secretary to reconsider the decision. You can sign it here:
openletter.earth/defend-acad…
Congratulations to co-founders @MaeveHalligan, @theasewell05 and Serena Worley, and everyone involved in the Cambridge University Society of Women on its first anniversary! Maeve’s Substack reflections are well worth a read. 👇
We had the pleasure of interviewing Maeve and Thea last year about the society and the circumstances that led to its creation.
The atmosphere in which they were operating was, to put it mildly, poisonous. As we reported in @TheCriticMag, Thea, in particular, was subjected to an extraordinary campaign of ostracism and belief-based harassment at Cambridge after being seen reading a gender-critical book. Yes, you read that correctly — @HJoyceGender’s Trans, to be precise.
Things got so bad that Thea was forced to move accommodation, transporting her belongings during the night so as not to be seen. When she went back one final time — again under cover of darkness — to collect what remained, she discovered that the derogatory slur “TERF” had been scratched into her door. You know, like something out of the Middle Ages.
A sobering reminder of the atmosphere in which these young women have had the courage to speak out.
Our account of what happened to Thea, and what it tells us about the dark reality of cancel culture at Cambridge:
thecritic.co.uk/the-dark-rea…
You can also find our interviews with Maeve and Thea on our YouTube channel here:
youtube.com/@CAF_UK
A year ago today, the Cambridge University Society of Women was launched. I co-founded it as a student, and tonight the new committee hosts its first guest speaker of the year. Couldn’t be prouder @CUSocOfWomen
Click below to read my reflections, one year on:
A new report by Amnesty International raises serious concerns about restrictions imposed on the academic freedom, freedom of speech and peaceful assembly of students and academics at UK universities in response to controversial but lawful expressions of support for Palestinians and criticism of Israel.
afcomm.org.uk/2026/10/29/amn…
The CAF-commissioned independent investigation into Cambridge University’s appointment of Jason Arday is now up and running, and needs the assistance of those who know Cambridge best.
We strongly encourage current and former academics, students and other members of the University community, as well as others with relevant knowledge, to come forward with information.
This might include policy documents, internal correspondence or first-hand accounts concerning Arday’s academic record, his appointment and subsequent time at Cambridge, the University’s response to concerns about his scholarship and its treatment of those who raised them, and the development and application of institutional policies relating to recruitment, promotion, academic misconduct, research integrity and equality, diversity and inclusion.
Anyone wishing to contribute can contact the Investigator directly at:
investigator@ardayinvestigation.net
The website provides further guidance on submitting information, including arrangements for particularly sensitive material:
ardayinvestigation.net/
This is a rare opportunity to bring matters long discussed behind closed doors, amongst trusted colleagues, into the light. Those who have witnessed decisions or practices that they believe warrant scrutiny, but have hitherto felt unable to raise their concerns through official channels, can now contribute to an investigation independent of the University.
Please help us spread the word and ensure this appeal reaches as many Cambridge academics and others with relevant knowledge as possible.
🤖 Made with AI
CAF has written to Cambridge’s Vice-Chancellor on behalf of several academics who fear professional repercussions if they raise concerns in their own names about a University-wide communication offering “support and advice” specifically to black members of staff.
The communication came from five members of Cambridge’s “Senior Black Leaders Group”, including two Deputy Vice-Chancellors and college heads.
That academics feel unable to raise concerns of this kind within their university without protecting their identities is something Cambridge’s senior leadership might wish to reflect upon. CAF therefore agreed to raise the matter on their behalf. In our letter, we ask Cambridge what that support comprised, whether access was afforded or facilitated on the same basis irrespective of race, and the legal and evidential basis for any difference.
Full story:
afcomm.org.uk/2026/10/19/cam…
“An academic who criticised universities’ marketing efforts as ‘bad’ is under investigation by his institution after fellow staff members raised complaints.”
As reported in Times Higher Education, CAF is currently supporting the academic in question, Dr Mike Ryder, following Lancaster University's decision to investigate him over criticism of its marketing practices.
We have secured specialist external legal counsel to advise on the case, and a formal letter challenging the basis for the investigation will be sent to the University on Dr Ryder’s behalf early next week.
Full story in @timeshigher:
timeshighereducation.com/new…
If you’re an academic facing an investigation or disciplinary action over your lawful speech, please get in touch: manager@afcomm.org.uk
Amnesty International’s new report on restrictions on pro-Palestinian speech and protest at UK universities makes for troubling reading. It documents students banned from campus for months, academics facing onerous restrictions on Palestine-related events, and disciplinary investigations into lawful political expression.
We’re pleased to see @amnesty highlight Professor James Dickins’s case at the University of Leeds, citing CAF’s earlier reporting. Dickins was investigated after calling for a “co-ordinated response” to a Jewish Society event co-hosted with StandWithUs, which Leeds interpreted as encouraging a protest (although Dickins actually had a joint letter of objection in mind).
Amnesty’s principal research period ended in September 2025, which means that the report ends with Leeds deciding not to revoke Dickins’s emeritus title. But the story didn’t end there.
Despite widespread opposition from CAF, academics, students and organisations including @OfficialBrismes and @bricup, Leeds issued Dickins with a formal written warning and withdrew his emeritus privileges.
It was an outrageous decision. Dickins subsequently brought Employment Tribunal proceedings, which settled on 1 June 2026, with Leeds agreeing to withdraw the warning and restore his privileges.
While Amnesty’s report paints a bleak picture of restrictions on lawful political expression across UK campuses, Dickins’s case offers an encouraging counterpoint: universities can be held to account, and their decisions reversed.
Amnesty’s report:
amnesty.org.uk/knowledge-hub…
CAF’s latest report:
afcomm.org.uk/2026/06/04/jam…
And if you’re a student or academic facing restrictions on your freedom of speech or academic freedom of the kind documented in Amnesty’s report, please do get in touch.
CAF provides confidential casework support, including assistance with internal complaints and regulatory remedies, and, in the most serious cases, can help secure specialist legal advice and representation.
Contact: manager@afcomm.org.uk
“Please stop adopting generalised statements of values — this inevitably encourages decision-making referring to a framework that has no relationship to the law.”
Sound advice for universities and their senior leaders from @akuareindorf KC, speaking at Edinburgh’s Conflict on Campus conference.
In CAF’s experience, it’s not uncommon to find a senior administrator or HR officer reminding an academic of the trite but true fact that freedom of speech is a “qualified right”, before proceeding, sometimes in the very same email, to assert that an alleged breach of the university's “values” takes the academic’s speech beyond the limits of what the law protects — thereby justifying anything from an admonition to “reflect on their tone or choice of words” to the launch of a disciplinary investigation.
timeshighereducation.com/new…
This looks very wrong, and we’ve reached out to Dr Mike Ryder, a Lecturer in Marketing at Lancaster University, offering our practical support.
If an academic is being formally investigated simply for publishing a blog criticising university marketing practices, this raises serious questions about the university’s compliance with its statutory free-speech duties. Dr Ryder’s own specialism is marketing, making the reported grounds for investigating his blog about university marketing strategies all the more extraordinary.
Under section A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, universities in England must take reasonably practicable steps to secure lawful freedom of speech for their staff. Subsection (13), referring directly to Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, makes clear that this includes the freedom to impart ideas, opinions and information through writing, including online. As is well established, this freedom protects not only inoffensive ideas, but also those which offend, shock or disturb.
Consistent with this statutory protection, the Office for Students’ regulatory guidance emphasises that higher education providers should have “a high tolerance for all kinds of lawful speech” and that there should be “a very strong presumption in favour of permitting lawful speech”.
If the facts are as reported, and this investigation is not promptly brought to an end, there may be grounds for a formal grievance and, potentially, a complaint to the OfS under its new free-speech complaints scheme.
And, just in case Lancaster University has missed it, paragraph 164 of the regulator’s guidance states: “Every complaints process should promptly reject vexatious, frivolous or obviously unmeritorious complaints relating to speech ... The starting point of any such process should be that lawful speech will not be punished because of a viewpoint that it expresses.” In other words, the investigation itself may raise free-speech concerns, even where no disciplinary sanction is ultimately imposed.
At the Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF), we support academics facing investigations and disciplinary proceedings arising from their lawful speech, including by helping them navigate internal university procedures and securing and funding specialist legal advice where appropriate.
We’ve also developed practical resources to help academics identify potential breaches of their free-speech rights and prepare complaints for the OfS’s free-speech complaints scheme, which you can access here:
afcomm.org.uk/afcomm-org-uk-…
If you’re facing something similar, please get in touch: manager@afcomm.org.uk
What better occasion than International Pronouns Day to remind universities that there’s no law requiring academics to declare their pronouns, and that demanding they do so may have legal consequences?!
CAF often hears from academics who have come under pressure — formally or through “invitations” from senior administrators — to display their pronouns in email signatures or participate in “pronoun circles”.
There’s obviously nothing wrong with declaring your pronouns if you wish. But for some academics, doing so means affirming beliefs about sex and gender that they don’t share, either personally or in their research.
Even where participation is nominally voluntary, the expectation that everyone will join in can make declining professionally difficult.
Sadly, the academics we’ve spoken to are far from alone. The government-commissioned Sullivan Review (2025) documented pressure to declare pronouns in email signatures and meetings, sometimes from senior university staff.
One respondent said refusing would jeopardise her job, while others regarded such declarations as demands to affirm gender-identity theory. The Review also recorded academics experiencing ostracism and denunciation by colleagues for refusing to comply.
But if academics are expected to affirm contested propositions in routine workplace interactions, what confidence can they have in their freedom to investigate those propositions in their research? This is why pressure to declare pronouns often forms part of a wider institutional climate in which gender-critical academics face professional and reputational consequences for challenging prevailing orthodoxies, whether concerning the collection and use of sex-disaggregated data, the distinction between biological sex and gender identity, or the implications of that distinction for women’s rights and single-sex services.
Thankfully, gender-critical beliefs are protected under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010, and universities that pressure employees to make declarations contrary to those beliefs — particularly where objections are met with disciplinary action — may expose themselves to claims of unlawful discrimination or harassment.
So if your university insists that you declare your pronouns contrary to your protected beliefs, consider emailing your manager or HR to explain why the requirement conflicts with them. If you feel obliged to comply for fear of the consequences of refusing, you can make clear that you are doing so under protest, without withdrawing your objection.
Keep a dated record of your objections, the university’s response and any subsequent pressure or adverse treatment. These records may prove important if you later pursue a legal claim.
If you believe you’ve suffered discrimination or harassment because of your philosophical beliefs, CAF may be able to help. We provide confidential casework support to academics facing infringements of their rights and, where appropriate, can secure specialist legal advice and representation.
Get in touch: manager@afcomm.org.uk
Good to see Times Higher Education covering the launch of CAF’s independent investigation into Cambridge’s appointment of Jason Arday, and some of the wider questions it raises about academic standards, merit and institutional decision-making. Full story here:
timeshighereducation.com/new…
If you’ve got concerns about academic standards or recruitment practices at Cambridge, but are worried about what might happen if you raise them through formal channels, the independent Arday Investigation wants to hear from you.
ardayinvestigation.net/
