Professor Alice Sullivan

All the documents from the review in one place 👇

Maureen Lipman is currently the target of a campaign of personal vilification and antisemitic abuse intended to secure her cancellation. For those committed to dismantling racism, it must be stated with absolute clarity that such tactics have no place within our cultural life. This campaign of intimidation is an attempt to force a lawful production off the stage through organised pressure. As venues face increasing pressure to exclude Jewish artists, our research in The New Boycott Crisis demonstrates that this is part of a broader, damaging pattern of informal cancellation across the arts. We must respond with calm, lawful clarity and stand in firm solidarity against such intimidation. @Freedom_in_Arts

I’ve delivered training to colleagues at Sussex several times in the past couple of years, and I can confirm that Kathleen Stock’s description of a “culture of student complaints, disciplinary investigations, and fear” remains an accurate reflection of how colleagues there are feeling today. You can see it in their eyes. You can hear it in the slight, but constant, stutter in their voices. The descriptions of the problems staff use are hesitant; more is implied than described. “Some of the student interactions we have are…tricky, particularly in relation to, er, protected characteristics.” “We’ve definitely seen a shift when it comes to students, er, behaving, well, presenting in ways that can be, I guess, challenging.” “We’ve had some problems in recent years, which you’ll probably have heard about.” That kind of thing. Every now and again, you get someone in the group who is a hardcore believer ✊. They’ll be the first to test the waters by telling the room that they are also “mindful of neurodiversity”. And they won’t stutter as terms like “safe space”, “LGBTQ+” and “student voice” dance from their semi-grins. This colleague tends not to give their name on the feedback forms at the end of the training session, but I’ll know them by their comment that “The session tended to frame the student as the problem”, or by the one lonely tick in the “disagree” box under the question about whether or not the trainer was effective. However, the hardcore believers are surprisingly rare. Maybe they self-select out of my training in favour of other types of event. Maybe they don’t think they need training. Or maybe I am getting to work with a representative sample and the believers really are a surprisingly small minority. When they speak, I would generally describe the vibe among their colleagues in the room as tired. This is not just a Sussex problem. Other university campuses are very similar, if sometimes a little less hesitant about naming it. However, it’s a very real problem - and, as this @unherd article sets out, no court appeal ruling on the technical meaning of the term “governing documents” will do anything to change the reality of what it’s like to work in a university today. The planet goes on being round. If I am invited to deliver training on Sussex’s campus again, I know I’ll again walk under that underpass that takes me from the station to the buildings that I always need a map to tell apart. And, just as I’ve done on each recent visit, I’ll imagine it was my name on rows of menacing posters lining that tiled tunnel. I’ll imagine I’m walking to work, knowing that the reactions of my managers, all the way up, are almost certain to range from “I don’t want to get involved” to “You’ve brought this on yourself”, with not an ounce of humanity or liberty on offer. And I’ll know that no salary offer would ever be enough to give up my freedom and rejoin the ranks of the permanent university employee. Sadly, the OfS’ errors of process, probably combined with some overzealous interpretation work from the court, have empowered the people in the sector who deny there’s a free speech problem. This ruling will be spun and it will be misinterpreted as some kind of clean bill of health. But, trust me, if you ever find yourself delivering training to a room full of academics, a court judgment like this will seem very unreal indeed.

@sophiescott Sack the food stylist.

The New York Times had a quiz about British swear words - hooray, very glad their raising awareness of our outstanding swearing abilities - but this photograph of crumpets is a hate crime THOSE ARE BAD CRUMPETS THE BUTTER AND JAM WILL SLIDE OFF

“During court proceedings earlier this year, Sussex’s barrister went so far as to call the university a ‘bastion of free speech’. Reader, I laughed.” Kathleen Stock on the rewriting of campus history, and why the Sussex v OfS ruling leaves intact the culture and bureaucracy that chills speech on campus. unherd.com/2026/05/the-re…

In light of the High Court ruling about the Sussex University fine, I went down memory lane for @unherd unherd.com/2026/05/the-re…

Universities should be reminded of their obligations under EA2010, which as @akuareindorf pointed out last year, were never going to be affected by this judgment. timeshighereducation.com/opinion/many-u…

Professor Jo Phoenix on Mrs Justice Lieven's paragraph 271. "Further the reliance on the chilling effect and potential for stress and anxiety are irrelevant considerations in respect of this purported breach."

A reminder of what happened at Sussex University... sex-matters.org/posts/publicat…

"The judgment shows not that free speech regulation is unnecessary, but that it needs more effective enforcement." @ObhishekSaha

This is so wrong…

The reaction of Sussex University to yesterday's appeal demonstrates the commitment to censorship remains firmly embedded in our university system. For too many university managers, commitments to EDI, 'emotional safety', decolonisation and trans ideology trump free speech. 🧵

So if someone complains about a lecture they haven't heard, the university has to vet it in advance? Have I got this right?

@cwknews 💯

Maybe if they checked to ensure material "does not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about women" you'd never hear from anyone who objected to gender critical feminism

So Mrs Justice Lieven thinks that if a single person (‘somebody’) objects to a lecture by a ’gender critical’ lecturer - expressing perfectly lawful views - then the Uni can check its contents in advance. This is pure censorship. What other views will be censored in this way?

The ECU/Advance HE document at the centre of the case decreed that "The curriculum will be checked to ensure that it does not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people, and that it contains material that positively represents trans people and trans lives". web.archive.org/web/2022021712…

There is much that is troubling in Mrs Justice Lieven's judgment in favour of the University of Sussex, but this stands out. The judge suggests that if someone objects to a 'gender critical feminist lecture' it might be reasonable for the university to demand that the lecture should be read in advance by 'the university'. So lecturers who believe that sex is real should have their lectures vetted by administrators if someone complains in advance of the lecture. This type of incentive is exactly what activists thrive on. And it suggests a regime which strips academics of all autonomy and acadmic freedom. judiciary.uk/judgments/the-…

This is horrific. Imagine what it must feel like being Jewish in the UK right now - it's shaming. bbc.co.uk/news/live/c3ve…

This is a disappointing judgment which effectively renders the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act toothless. It sends a message to universities that they only need to pay lip service to the new free speech duties in the Act and not actually do anything concrete to uphold academic freedom and free speech on campus. This judgment will effectively leave academics like Kathleen Stock defenceless, while empowering activists to hound off campus anyone they disagree with. We very much hope the Office for Students appeals and if it does we hope to intervene.

"Fellow Oxford professor Michael Biggs tells me there is ‘a strong case that Mr Rattley is creating a degrading and offensive environment, especially for female students, which would constitute sexual harassment’. ‘Adults should be free to explore their sexual interests in private with other consenting adults, but not to bring them to work’, he adds." @jo_bartosch spiked-online.com/2026/04/29/why…