Specific areas within the University.

Admissions, appointments and promotion 

The viewpoint of a student at a university the University should not affect whether they are admitted to another course here. A binding offer to a student should not be varied or revoked because of their viewpoint.  

We should also not require anyone in an academic position to commit to a particular point of view. 

If we offer a student or visiting academic a place based on funding, restricting what views they express should not be a condition for receiving the funding. 

Students or staff should not be disciplined, expelled, fired or placed at risk of losing jobs, promotions or other privileges for expressing lawful ideas.  

Where a member of staff is dismissed, the process should record in sufficient detail all decisions. If concerns about academic freedom have arisen or might reasonably arise, this record should include evidence that the appointment process did not penalise a candidate for their exercise of academic freedom. This may include, for instance, written reasons for the decision. 

In the same way, if a member of staff applies for academic promotion, the process should include a sufficiently detailed record of all decisions. If concerns about academic freedom have arisen or might reasonably arise, this record should include evidence that the process did not penalise a candidate for their exercise of academic freedom. This may include, for instance, written reasons for the decision. 

Complaints

In order to avoid unnecessary intrusive investigations, it is likely to be reasonably practicable to include a preliminary assessment/triage to assess whether to commence an investigation into someone’s speech or the viewpoint that they have expressed. The starting point of any such process should be that lawful speech will not be punished because of a viewpoint that it expresses.  

This preliminary assessment should be quick, fair and objective, and should generally and promptly reject complaints that are simply about a lawful viewpoint. 

The University should not encourage students or staff to report others over lawful expression of a particular viewpoint. 

Every complaint process should promptly reject vexatious, frivolous or obviously unmeritorious complaints relating to speech. In order to avoid unnecessary intrusive investigations, it is likely to be reasonably practicable to include a preliminary assessment/triage to assess whether to commence an investigation. The starting point of any such process should be that lawful speech will not be punished because of a viewpoint that it expresses.  

Complaints processes should be concluded as rapidly as is reasonably practicable and compatible with fairness.  

Governance 

The governing body should keep a record of all decisions that are likely to have a substantial effect on lawful free speech. These records should show how it has considered the importance of free speech and academic freedom. 

External reviews – judicial review, regulatory investigation, relevant complaints processes – should be able to access these records. So, we should keep them long enough for this purpose.  

The University should clearly document where it delegates decisions to committees and individuals that could substantially affect its compliance with free speech duties. The terms of reference for these committees should also clearly require the committee to consider these duties. 

Any decisions about the curriculum should give academics the freedom to teach and communicate lawful ideas that may be controversial, unpopular or offensive. They should also not restrict the exposure of students to ideas simply because those ideas may be unpopular, controversial or offensive to some. 

Research 

Staff and students should be free to conduct academic research within the law. 

If research reaches a conclusion or viewpoint that conflicts with an organisation’s policies or values, this is not a reason to restrict the research. Funding that supports research should also not constrain the conclusions or viewpoint of researchers. 

Research ethics committees should: 

• focus on ethical issues not the quality of the research or its impact on the provider's reputation 
• have particular regard to the importance of academic freedom 
• follow a transparent process 
• be closely monitored so that research is not suppressed unnecessarily. 

Speaker events 

Where someone has been invited to speak at an event or meeting, they should not be prevented from speaking because of their lawful ideas or viewpoints. 

Generally, this means that the University should not cancel events because of protests or objections (even if they are widespread) as long as they do not interfere with the essential functions of the university or college – teaching, learning, research and necessary administration. 

In some cases, we may need to regulate the time, place or manner of a speaking event so that the essential functions of higher education continue, or if there is a concern about physical safety. Such regulation should not restrict the time, place or manner of speech any more than necessary. 

Teaching 

The University should not pressure academic staff to teach or endorse particular values. They should also not treat students any more or less favourably than any other student because of their viewpoints or ideas. 

Students’ ideas or viewpoints should not affect (among other things): 

• whether or how we educate a student 
• a student's access to benefits, facilities or services.