When universities protect the expression of controversial views, the burden of maintaining this environment of ¡°open debate¡± falls on those most directly affected by the views in question. For those individuals, such debates are not abstract thought exercises but potentially the terrain of daily marginalisation.

Meanwhile, students and staff asserting the rights of those minoritised groups could feel compelled to temper or withhold their objections to such views for fear that their resistance will be construed as evidence of institutional bias or obstructive to free speech itself.?

That is the context in which we should view last week¡¯s report by the Office for Students on the University of Sussex¡¯s supposed failure to protect the free speech of gender-critical academic Kathleen Stock. The OfS¡¯ decision to impose the first financial penalty under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act exposes deep ambiguities about what precisely universities are being asked to protect.

The rhetoric of free speech absolutism often masks worrying contradictions. In the UK, for instance, the Prevent Strategy has disproportionately surveilled and silenced Muslim students and academics under the guise of national security, contributing to an environment in which on such subjects as foreign policy and Islamophobia.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Meanwhile, legislators in Florida have introduced sweeping restrictions on the teaching of race and gender, demonstrating that the loudest advocates of unrestricted discourse are content to suppress it when it serves their interests. Free speech, as wielded in contemporary debates, is less about a universal principle than about defining the limits of acceptability along ideological lines.

Moreover, while it is undoubtedly important that a broad spectrum of views be heard, we must not mistake exposure for enlightenment. Ideas do not win out through mere juxtaposition in an imagined marketplace of rational discourse but through the structures that legitimise and disseminate them. In this sense, speech is never just an abstract right; it is a function of institutional, political and cultural authority.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Universities are not, and should not be, neutral forums where all views are treated as equally valid, therefore. As institutions devoted to knowledge production and intellectual rigour, they must prioritise expertise over opinion in what they teach and platform. A biologist¡¯s research on sex and gender is not the same as a celebrity¡¯s tweet, just as a historian¡¯s analysis of the Holocaust is not on a par with antisemitic conspiracy theories. The purpose of free speech in academia is not to indulge every viewpoint indiscriminately, but to test ideas against evidence.

The recent Times Higher Education survey on academic freedom reflects the complexity of these issues, revealing stark differences in how academics perceive free speech. While some argue for near-total protection of academic expression, others highlight the need for universities to balance this freedom with the responsibility to maintain respectful and constructive discourse. A significant proportion of respondents acknowledge that universities must uphold both freedom of expression and institutional responsibility, ensuring that speech serves an educational purpose rather than simply inflaming division. These responses underscore the broader challenge: defending free speech while ensuring it remains a tool for inquiry rather than a pretext for harm.

Many students and educators argue for ¡°safe¡± learning environments, where they are not routinely subjected to statements that challenge their basic human rights. These concerns are valid; the toll that hostile discourse can take should not be underestimated. However, global events have made one truth unmistakably clear: suppressing harmful rhetoric does not make it disappear. It can gain traction precisely because it has gone unconfronted for too long.

The increasing consolidation of social media under individuals with ideological agendas has only exacerbated this problem, amplifying outrage over reasoned discourse and lending legitimacy to narratives that would once have remained on the fringes. Higher education must respond to these challenges by reclaiming the terms of debate. The real work lies in creating conditions where the capacity to think critically is nurtured alongside the right to express. It is not enough to platform dissenting voices without interrogating the societal structures that determine which dissent is permitted and which is quashed.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

London Metropolitan University¡¯s Education for Social Justice Framework (ESJF) exemplifies such an approach. It is an institutional commitment to equity, enacted through student-staff curriculum co-design, inclusive assessment reform and training that equips educators and students alike to recognise and mitigate structural bias within the academy and beyond. It seeks to foster a culture of common dignity, where dissent and exploration can flourish without undermining each other¡¯s humanity.?

Guests who are offered a campus platform may reasonably be expected to express their views in a way that reflects the university¡¯s ethos of respectful dialogue and intellectual rigour. Yet the OfS ruling on Sussex implies that even such minimal expectations could constitute impermissible restraint. This approach to free speech strips it of context, treating it as an isolated entitlement without accountability, potentially extinguishing an institution¡¯s ability to uphold basic values of collective dignity and inclusivity.?

If universities are to remain spaces of genuine inquiry, they must be able to ask not only whether speech is permitted but what it permits: what conditions it creates, what hierarchies it reinforces and whose participation it enables or denies. An absolutist approach to the free speech debate risks entrenching views that have long been used to marginalise, silencing minorities who have only recently found the courage to speak.

is an associate professor in theatre arts at London Metropolitan University, where he is also equity, equality, diversity and inclusion lead for the School of Art, Architecture and Design.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ