We’ve covered elsewhere the implications for policy related to academic freedom and freedom of speech stemming from the Office for Students’ decision to fine the University of Sussex for breaches of ongoing registration conditions E1 and E2.
The publication of a detailed regulatory report also allows us insight into the way in which OfS is likely to respond to future breaches of registration conditions. It is, effectively, case law on the way OfS deals with concerns about higher education providers in England – and while parts of your university will be digesting what the findings mean for academic freedom policies, others will be thinking more widely about the implications for regulation.
The University of Sussex, perhaps unsurprisingly, wishes to challenge the findings. It is able to challenge both the regulatory decisions and the amount of the fines at a first tier tribunal.
As always, appeals are supposed to be process based rather than just a general complaint, so the university would have to demonstrate that the application of the registration conditions was incorrect, or the calculation of the fine was incorrect, or both. As above, there is no meaningful defence of the way the fines were calculated or discounted within the judgement so that would feel like the most immediately fertile ground for argument.
Here’s some of the points that stood out:
How and why was the decision to investigate made?
We are told that, on 7 October 2021, the OfS identified reports about an incident at the University of Sussex. This followed the launch of a student campaign at the University of Sussex the previous day – which involved a poster campaign, a masked demonstrator holding a sign, and a hashtag on social media – calling for Kathleen Stock (a professor in the philosophy department) to lose her job.
This was widely covered in the media at the time, and sparked commentary from interest groups including the Safe Schools Alliance UK and the Free Speech Union. The OfS subsequently contacted the university seeking further information, before starting a full investigation on 22 October 2021. However, despite significant public interest, the decision to start an investigation was not made public until a statement by an education minister in the House of Lords on 16 November (when we were told that the Department for Education was notified on 11 November).
Kathleen Stock resigned from her role at the university on 28 October – six days after the start of the investigation, and substantially before the public announcement. She noted that “the leadership’s approach more recently had been admirable and decent”, while the university claimed to have “vigorously and unequivocally defended Prof Kathleen Stock’s right to exercise her academic freedom and lawful freedom of speech, free from bullying and harassment of any kind”.
What’s not clear from this timeline is the nature of the notification on which the Office for Students was acting: the regulatory framework in place at the time suggested OfS would take action on the basis of lead indicators, reportable events, and other intelligence and sources of information. There are no metrics involved in this decision, and we are told the provider did not notify the OfS so there was no reportable event notification.
We are left with the understanding that “other sources of information” were used – these could be “volunteered by providers and others, including whistleblowers”. Perhaps it was the same “source of information” that caused then Minister Michelle Donelan to shift from backing the university response on 8 October to calling for action on 10 October?
We also know that – despite OfS’ insistence that it “does not currently have a role to act on behalf of any individual” – it appears that the only person to submit a “witness statement” to OfS was Stock. If OfS was concerned generally about the potential for a chilling effect on academic speech, would it not want to speak to multiple academics to confirm these suspicions? Doesn’t speaking to just one affected individual feel a little like acting “on behalf” of that individual?
Finally – sorry to bang on – we don’t know who at OfS made the decision to conduct an investigation or on what basis. Can, say, the director of regulation just decide (based on a story in the press, or general vibes) to investigate a university – or is there a process involving sign-off by other senior staff, ideally involving some kind of assessment of the likelihood of a problem being identified within a reasonable period of time? If I were an internal auditor I would also want to be very clear that the decision was made using due process and free from political or ideological influence (for instance I’d be alarmed that someone was content for then-chair James Wharton to posit an absolutist definition of free speech in the Telegraph) shortly after the investigation started.
Why did it take so long to investigate and make a decision?
The only clue we are given in the regulatory report is that this is a “complex area”. OfS requested a substantial amount of documentation from Sussex – it even used a “compliance order” to make sure that no evidence was destroyed. However, it does not appear that OfS ever visited the provider to speak to staff and students – in other regulatory investigation reports, OfS has been assiduous in logging each visit and contact. There is none of that here – we don’t know how many interactions OfS had with Sussex, or on how many occasions information was requested. Indeed, OfS appears not to have visited Sussex at all. Arif Ahmed told us:
“There may have been occasions where the university wanted to meet in person and communication was done in writing instead
Various points of law are referred to in the regulatory report : it is notable that none of this is new law requiring additional interpretation or investigation (the new Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act had not even left the House of Commons committee stage at this point). It shouldn’t really take a competent lawyer that knows the sector more than a few weeks to summarise the law as it then stood and present options for action.
The investigation into the University of Sussex was mentioned in the Chief Executive’s report from the 2 December 2021 Board meeting, and it turned up (often just as an indication that the investigation was ongoing)
If OfS was able to fine a university for a breach of an ongoing registration relating to academic freedom, why do we need the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act?
Well, quite. On our reckoning, the Act would have made no difference to the entire affair, save potentially for a slight chilling effect on students being empowered to exercise their own freedom of speech, and a requirement for both providers and OfS to promote free speech. The ability of the OfS to reach the conclusion it reached, and to instigate regulatory consequences, suggests that further powers were not necessary to uphold freedom of speech on campus – despite the arguments made by many at the time. There is nothing OfS could have done better, or quicker, or more effectively had the Act been in force. Sussex, in fact, had a freedom of speech policy at the time, something that the regulatory report fails to mention or take account of.
It is curious that the announcement of the investigation came at the start of a long pause in parliamentary activity on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act – at that time we were keenly anticipating a report from the House of Commons committee stage, but we got no action at all on the bill until it was carried forward into the next session of parliament.
How was the amount of the fine arrived at?
There is a detailed account of the process by which it was decided to fine Sussex £360,000 for a breach of registration condition E1, and £225,000 for a breach of registration condition E2. It appears thorough and convincing, right until the point that you read it.
OfS appears to be using a sliding scale (0.9 per cent of qualifying income for “failing to uphold the freedom of speech and academic freedom governance principle”, 0.5 per cent of qualifying income for “a failure to have adequate and effective management and governance arrangements in place”, an additional 0.2 per cent for not reporting the breach, a 0.2 per cent reduction for taking mitigating action…) and although Regulatory Notice 19 takes us through the process in broad terms we don’t get any rationale for why those proportions apply to those things.
It’s all a bit “vibes based regulation” in truth.
It is to be welcomed that OfS reduced its initial calculation of a £3.7m (1.6 per cent of qualifying income) fine to a more manageable £585,000 – but why reduce to that amount (by a hair under 85 per cent) purely because it is the first fine ever issued for this particular offence? What reduction will be applied to the next fines issued under registration conditions E1 and E2? If none, why not – surely “sufficient deterrence” is possible at that amount so why go higher?
The documentation covers none of this – it is very hard to shake the impression that OfS is pulling numbers out of the air. When you compare the £57,000 (0.1 per cent) fine issued to the University of Buckingham for not providing audited accounts for two years (something which would have yielded something altogether nastier from Companies House you do have to ask whether the Sussex infractions were 1.5 percentage points more severe at the initial reckoning?
Are the wider implications as the regulator intends?
There are so many questions raised that will now be hurriedly posed at universities and higher education all over England – and my colleague Jim Dickinson has raised many of them elsewhere on the site. He’s had enough material for four pieces and I’m sure there will be many more questions that could be explored. Why – for example – should the regulator have a problem with “prohibiting the harmful use of stereotypes”? Is there a plausible situation where we would want to encourage the harmful use of stereotypes?
It would also be worth noting the many changes to the policy that appears to have caused the initial concern (the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement) between 2018 and 2024. Perhaps these changes demonstrated the university dealing with a rapidly shifting public debate (conducted, in part, by people with the political power to influence culture more generally) as seemed appropriate at each point? So why is OfS not able to sign off on the current iteration of this policy? Why is it hanging a hefty fine on a single iteration on what is clearly a living document?
There’s also a burden issue.Is it the position of the regulator that every policy of each university needs to be signed off by the academic council or governing bodies? Or are there any examples of policies where decisions can be delegated to a competent body or individual? A list would be helpful, if only to avoid a burdensome “gold plating” of provider-level decision making.
Beyond the freedom of speech arguments
There are 24 ongoing conditions of registration currently in force at the Office for Students – a regulatory report and a fine (or other sanctions) could come about through an inadvertent breach of any one of them. Many of these conditions don’t just apply to students studying on your campus – they have an applicability for students involved in franchised (and in some cases validated) provision around the world.
We should be in a position where the sector can be competently and reliably regulated, where providers can understand the basis, process, and outcomes of any investigation, and that these are communicated promptly and clearly to the wider public. On the evidence of this report, we are a long way off.
