ÌðÐÄÊÓƵ

ÌðÐÄÊÓƵ are firmly committed to working with government to prevent the spread of hatred, to protect our staff and students from racism and religious-based harassment including antisemitism and Islamophobia and, especially in the last few months, to ensure that they are places where strongly held views can be debated with respect and tolerance within the law. ÌðÐÄÊÓƵ are also bound by law, as well as their own convictions, to promote and protect freedom of speech and academic freedom. For these reasons we have concerns about the updated definition of extremism and its potential future application to universities.

In the current context, our primary aim has been to reduce and not inflame tensions on campuses, and we are concerned that while this definition of extremism will not apply to universities to England ‘initially’, this implies it may be the government’s intention to extend to universities in the future. Requiring universities to adopt the new definition is likely to curtail the parameters of legitimate speech on contentious topics and may be actively counter-productive to our efforts to reduce any tensions on campus, which are best managed through structured and respectful debate within the bounds of the law.  Issues such as the Israel-Gaza conflict, sex and gender, and other topics on which there are strongly held and contrary views could now all could be included within this definition. The expectation that universities continue to act as bastions of free speech has been strengthened further through the recent Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act of 2023. Far from making our campuses safer, by removing legitimate routes to discuss these topics, it risks pushing conversations to the fringes and exacerbating existing tensions. We are also concerned that this new definition and proposed approach could lead to the disproportionate targeting of particular communities, including Muslim staff and students on our campuses.

University leadership have been working diligently to ensure that campuses remain a safe and welcoming community for students of all backgrounds and beliefs, and spaces where difficult and contentious ideas can be discussed within the law without fear of repercussion. Maintaining this delicate balance has been, at times, extraordinarily difficult, but it is central to the purpose of our universities.

Finally, we note that universities are referred to by government as ‘non-central government institutions’ in relation to the new definition. We would like to highlight that universities are not public bodies:  although they do receive large amounts of public money, and are rightly accountable to government, funders, regulators and others, they remain autonomous, self-governing institutions.

Given that universities are not Government institutions, we urge the government to confirm they will not extend the application of this new approach to universities.