The UK government is facing a significant legal challenge over its recent decision to halt the implementation of legislation designed to protect free speech in universities. This development has created an unusual situation where the government's own free speech tsar, Prof Arif Ahmed, may find himself opposing the government's stance in court.
Last month, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson announced the suspension of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, just days before it was set to take effect. This act, a flagship policy of the previous administration, aimed to compel universities to actively promote free speech on campuses. The decision to shelve the law has thrown Prof Ahmed's position as director for freedom of speech and academic freedom into uncertainty.
The Free Speech Union (FSU), an organization founded in 2020 to protect free speech rights, has initiated legal proceedings against the government's decision. They argue that the move to "kill off" the legislation would make it "virtually impossible for students and academics to challenge radical progressive ideology on campus." This legal action has taken an intriguing turn, as Prof Ahmed has been named as an "interested party" in the application for judicial review.
"These proceedings are of the highest constitutional importance. For almost 350 years, the governance of this country has rested on a golden premise: ministers of the Crown may not set aside the law made by Parliament."
This principle, dating back to around 1674, underscores the significance of the current legal challenge. The involvement of Prof Ahmed, a former philosophy professor at Cambridge University, adds a layer of complexity to the case. As the director overseeing free speech functions at the Office for Students (OfS), he had spent the past year designing a complaints scheme for academics who felt "cancelled" over their personal beliefs.
The government's decision to halt the legislation was partly influenced by concerns from universities about protecting their operations in authoritarian states like China. This highlights the delicate balance between promoting academic freedom and maintaining international partnerships. The Department for Education has cited potential harm to vulnerable groups and the risk of costly legal challenges as reasons for pausing the implementation.
As this legal battle unfolds, it raises important questions about the balance between free speech, academic freedom, and the protection of vulnerable groups in higher education. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the future of free speech policies in UK universities and the government's approach to legislating on such matters.