On the day when Sussex University was fined £585,000 for breaking free speech rules, the vice-chancellor wrote to all staff urging them not to speak to the media.
In an email to staff that was sent yesterday morning, vice-chancellor Sasha Roseneil said: “Sussex has a foundational commitment to academic freedom and freedom of speech.”
A few lines later, she said: “Given the media interest in this story, there is the possibility that journalists may contact members of staff for comment.
“If you are contacted by a journalist, please refer them to the university’s central press office.”
In an article for the Politics Home website, the vice-chancellor criticised the regulator, the Office for Students, and its “Kafka-esque” investigation.
She said: “Levying a wholly disproportionate fine after a flawed, politically motivated and wasteful investigation – when the higher education sector is in financial crisis – serves no one.”
But in an editorial today (Thursday 27 March), The Times praised the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, for backing the regulator and for saying that students should expect their views to be challenged.
The leading article, headlined “Lesson Not Learnt”, said: “Sussex says the penalty reignites the ‘culture wars’. It does no such thing. It is about truth and the right to speak it. One doesn’t require a PhD to understand that.”
Today, one staff member said: “My colleagues tend to be highly articulate and care deeply about the university.
“Given the pressure on budgets, some of us would prefer to feel freely able to express our thoughts about such a big fine and how it will affect staff and students.
“One of the risks of sending out an email like this is its potential to reinforce the criticisms made about the nature and extent to which freedom of speech is tolerated here.”
Another said: “It ought to be possible to discuss difficult and complex and controversial ideas without enduring the campaign of threats, intimidation and personal vilification that drove out Kathleen Stock.
“There are, of course, balances to be struck between freedom of speech and respect for other people and their opinions.
“Not everyone believes that the university achieved the right and proper balance on this issue and the email from the vice-chancellor has only served to reinforce that disbelief.”
A third said: “While I have a different perspective to Stock and I’m angry about the fine and I sympathise with the wish to challenge it, it could backfire.
“The lawyers will prosper but, in the current climate, it wouldn’t surprise me if the fine was increased, especially if supportive voices are silenced.”
The university said: “Academic freedom and freedom of speech are foundational elements of a university, and the university is committed to ensuring that diversity in all its forms, particularly diversity of thought and identity, are able to flourish at Sussex.
“As such, the university encourages and supports its students and staff to freely express their views and beliefs within the law.
“The advice shared with staff is standard protocol as a duty of care to our community during a time in which the university is seeing significant media interest.”
So much for free speech then?
Not really. All employers I have worked for required me not to talk to the press about anything, and refer the press to the company’s communications team. This is standard practice.
Indeed. Free to say anything, but not free from consequence. Very standard agreement with an employer, which you are free to accept or reject, the consequence being that it may very well be a requirement of your employment.
Bridget Philipson should hold her head in shame. The Labour Party is supposed to stand up for minorities. Instead she is parroting Tory attack lines. Voters should remember this when they vote next time – it’s not a choice between Tory and Labour but Red Tory and Blue Tory.
And how does preventing Free speech actually protect minorities? Everyone should be heard including those minorities. What was Kathleen Stock saying that was so terrible she required security? All sides need to show some tolerance rather than becoming further entrenched and blinkered.
Nonsense. It is right that this line by Sussex uni is challenged and that they are fined.
We do self-censor, and it’s time that everyone was allowed to speak on this issue.
Lesson doesn’t seem to be being learnt, by the university (at this stage) trying to appeal an almost 600k fine for failure to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech, or from people still convinced ‘the trans community as a ‘minority’ is justified in bullying, harrassing, oppressing, vilifying, silencing people who don’t agree with them and destroying the careers of people who have a different- but reality and lawful based opinion. Kathleen Stock did nothing wrong . Yet the systematic silencing of people (‘mostly women) who raise concern about trans ideology has lead to years of harmful practice being embedded across our institutions, affecting our children and young people’s health, destroying women’s and girls rights their data etc. and distorting everyones reality.
Misogyny but wearing a dress. Bunch of weirdos
Seems odd that everyone seems so keen on students having their views challenged, whilst Ms Stock seemingly does not like her views to be challenged. Surely the rules should be applied across the board?
You misunderstand. The university required trans matters to be presented in a positive light. No criticism. Ms. Stock is a philosopher. She stressed the overwhelming importance of sex vis a vis gender.
This brought mountains of abuse, which the university did nothing about.
Ms. Stock wasn’t challenged, she was harassed and bullied. There’s a difference, and you should probably try to understand that.
Good to read this exchange of views: the Uni should suck it up and pay up and the useless trade union should hang in shame. And the VC should resign as not fit for any purpose whatsoever.
I’m old enough to remember the “the po*fs will stare at my wil*ie” type hysteria around communal male spaces in the 80’s. Turns out that most people in a locker room are concerned with getting changed and most people in a toilet space are concerned with having a poo or wee. In B&H pretty much any such space is occupied by at least someone who might hypothetically want to interact with your bits but, in reality, the desire to carry on one’s day post changing/poo/wee is far more persuasive than lustfully gravitating towards the nearest fit genatalia and sexual persuasion wise.
I presume that Ms Stock lived through the “I don’t want any d*kes looking at my f*nny” phase our society was at not so long ago. It amazes me that she would barefaced reel off a similar statement having no doubt been at the sharp end of the above. In this context, having walked the path we have on gay rights (and, granted, we have yet to reach the mountaintop) I struggle to see how this can be seen as an argument around free speech. For decades we have called people professor, vicar or colonel (to just use examples from Cluedo) because that’s how they want to be addressed without necessarily being brought into the world of academic, religious or military privilege. It’s really no biggie and only polite. If someone irrationally wants to identify as a portly, short, white, middle aged, hetrosexual, cis man I’m not going to claim breach of copyright. I’d suggest we have bigger problems to worry about as a society.
The common enemy of women and trans folk is violent men. It amazes me why those fixated on their identity as the former don’t at least want to unite in this battle. If, upon hypothetically smiting the common enemy, they want to have a pop at the trans folk if they still have fight in them and we can deal with some of the tiresome ‘what if’ situations then.
That said, the hardcore trans activist community are really doing the aim of getting from a to b by the most efficient route no favours. I urge them to look around at where our country is heading and what really brought the transformation about gay rights to learn that incivility is counter productive and a massive bear trap. I have a border collie of middling intelligence who could expose holes in Ms Stock’s position on this matter in a civilised debate. The hardcore activists really need to read the room better to play the long game. Relaxing, living ones life as one is and making friends with people one likes in places like our wonderful city is what really turned the tide on gay rights based on my lived experience. Taking the micky is much more effective than poisonous vitriol.
It amazes me that the trans ideology issue gets over simplified to being just about people’s obsession with other people’s bits in public toilets and comparison to gay rights. It not just about bits and it’s not the same as gay rights. Kathleen Stock made the point most educated people recognise and accept- which is that sex matters, and sex is not the same as gender. Sadly no person, let alone collies of middling intelligence have had the opportunity to debate/discuss/pick holes in each others arguments to date- only the trans ideologue narrative has prevailed by systematically silencing anyone who questions them to the detriment of our gay and lesbian youth who have been encouraged to believe they are in the wrong body and need converting and medicalising , and the detriment to women’s and girls protections and rights, data etc.. Proper discussion and debate is long overdue.
OK. I 100% accept that this is far more complex than my, in retrospect somewhat glib, comments reflected. I also accept that its not fully analogous more widely with historical struggles around gay rights given the specific complexities that I hope our society can reach an amicable consensus on at some point. However, I do think the analogies around locker rooms/toilets, the copyrighting of identity by individuals and people just chilling out a bit do still hold up, even if I didn’t adequately reflect the wider picture.
I appreciate there has been a lot of focus on Ms Stock’s oft repeated comments about banning willies in the locker room which she argues specifically on the basis of sexual attraction. However, I picked on it because the longstanding unwritten conventions around ‘no platforming’ people do extend to an individual having adjacent positions that are not defensible, even if that is not the focus of the debate on that specific day. I and others might be more open to giving her a fair hearing more widely were that not the case. Absolutely none of this excuses the awful treatment meted out to her and civil discourse (even if not on a formal platform) should always be the order of the day.
The irony perhaps is that, were she to be platformed more often in a civilised debate that was allowed to focus on the above position, her ‘Cricket Test’ type comments about identity and her myopic recent obsession with this issue at the exclusion of the wider violent men thing, they would be pretty easily pulled apart out in the open, Border Collie or no Border Collie. I’m sure she may have arguments of merit but she has enough prominent arguments with significant flaws that make her just as unhelpful as the dogmatists on the other extreme to the aim of working through the various issues in a civilised way.
Clearly there needs to be pragmatism and compromise on both sides. The more dogmatic trans rights people probably need to accept that we need to fall back on science around puberty blockers and that will inevitably lead to a conservative position because that’s how science works in areas where there are ethical and other barriers around research. They probably need to accept that trans women will be excluded from many women’s sports. Lobbying organisations making a point of trans inclusion in support groups for female victims of sexual violence might pragmatically take the view that this should not be a focus right now in the interests of de-escalation. One cannot just wish away biological sex at birth for numerous practical, non-dogmatic reasons (not least medical records) anyway. I just don’t feel Ms Stock would be capable of contributing to reciprocal and equal compromise from her side of the debate.
The silly thing is, a lot of the biological stuff doesn’t even make sense. I’m assuming you’re male (carrotboy, but correct me if I’m wrong), forgetting any sense of gender, if you took enough estrogen to make that your dominant hormone (like a majority of trans women do) you would have to follow almost all “female” health advice; whenever you get asked about BMI or diet or any number of things, your metabolism etc would all be in line with a non-trans woman’s. Health wise there’s not actually much that birth gender dictates beyond the very obvious, that’s why “biological man/woman” is a scientific misnomer because it’s a lot more complex than that.
If people believe that there’s something that makes you inherently male or female about a person and can’t be changed (DNA, gametes or something) then that’s fine that’s their prerogative but it’s not really their place to make sweeping judgments about how trans people should be medically categorised. I don’t understand why they would even want to, it just flat out doesn’t concern them.
What a load of rubbish taking enough oestrogen means you’d have to take almost all female health advice. It’s sprouting that type of misinformation that got us in this situation in the first place.
‘Don’t speak out about free speech’ !
A great quote to put on the vice-chancellor’s leaving card
“Uni boss urges staff not to speak out about free speech fine”
The irony is strong in this one. I can feel it.
I’m trans and I’m so sick of hearing about these people who really have no actual connection to our issues basically trying to play devil’s advocate in increasingly more provocative ways and then complain they’re being “silenced” when they receive the slightest pushback. How many years has this story been floating around now? She’s literally famous for being “silenced” how does that work?
I don’t care if Kathleen Stock thinks whatever of me, she’s entitled to her opinion, she’s obviously not going to change her views and she can soapbox whatever she wants but it’s just so sad because she knows exactly what she’s doing and it’s so clearly in bad faith. If you say controversial things about the LGBT community in the LGBT capital of the UK of course you are going to get pushback. It’s no different if you did an anti-muslim speech in Whitechapel, you can say it’s free speech and that you’re entitled to it or whatever but everyone knows that you’re just trying to be provocative.
Not the slightest pushback- bullied, harassed, needed protection and was hounded out of her job as professor of philosophy because she offended trans ideologues. And she is not the only one. Plenty of people from the LGB (including T) community are pleased/relieved that facts/opinion other than the bullying and highly controversial narrative dominated and controlled by trans activists is finally being allowed to air, that institutions (that should have known better) will have to think twice before blindly following the demands of advocates for an ideology that does not tolerate and silences differing opinion and has caused untold harm as a result. This may be uncomfortable if you are wedded to a certain belief on rocky foundations, but hearing different opinion, proper discussion and debate is long overdue.