Alumni for Free Speech

Today we publish our detailed report showing that, due to AFFS pressure, 36 universities have now scrapped the need for job applicants to show support for EDI. @AFAF_freespeech @StudentAFAF @lucaf_london Full details here affs.uk/edi-reqts-in-r…

@ProfAliceS @AFFSUK Archive version: archive.ph/aydRH

From @Fox_Claire “In better news, I’ve won a ballot to have a debate of my choice in the House of Lords soon. I’ve chosen artistic boycotts as my theme: the way that the arts establishment closes ranks against anyone who is, for example, gender critical or in any way supportive of Israel. I will be delighted to highlight the report by Rosie Kay and Denise Fahmy.” academyofideas.uk/p/inside-the-l…

🚨 After trans activists disrupted two of Dr Michael Foran’s Oxford lectures on sex, gender identity and the law, leading him to cancel the remainder of the series, Alumni for Free Speech (AFFS) raised serious concerns with the University about its handling of the events. As we point out, if the facts as publicly reported are correct, the University is highly likely to have acted unlawfully, as well as having committed regulatory failures, ultimately allowing protest to become a de facto heckler’s veto and creating a chilling effect on people’s freedom of thought and speech. Our letter argues that the University urgently needs to take action to set matters right, including publicly reminding staff and students of the requirements of its Freedom of Speech Code, investigating likely breaches of that Code and its harassment policy, apologising to those affected, and commissioning an independent review so those responsible for the failures are not allowed to mark their own homework. Having now referred the matter to the Office for Students, we’ve published the letter in full, setting out the legal and regulatory questions raised and the urgent reforms we believe Oxford must undertake to protect free speech in practice. Read our letter at the link below: affs.uk/wp-content/upl… @michaelpforan @ProfAliceS @Fox_Claire @SpeechUnion @AFAF_freespeech @ComAcFreedom

Times Higher Education has today reported on AFFS’s decision to notify the Office for Students (OfS) of what we believe are serious legal and regulatory failures in Oxford’s shambolic treatment of Dr @michaelpforan, an associate professor of law, after trans activists disrupted two events in his four-part lecture series. While universities should, of course, protect lawful protest, the issue here is that Oxford approved protests inside the lecture theatre. After activists disrupted the first lecture by denouncing Foran as a “bigot” and urging students to walk out, the University was on notice that further disruption was a real possibility. Despite this, it approved another protest inside the lecture space, the second lecture was disrupted again, and the remaining lectures were ultimately cancelled by Foran to avoid further harassment of attendees. Not allowing protests inside a lecture theatre is not just common sense: it is a legally required step, as clearly reflected in guidance from the OfS. We are amazed that Oxford could have thought otherwise. Having written to the Vice-Chancellor on 11 June and received no response, we have now formally notified the OfS of potential breaches of Oxford’s statutory duties, which require universities to take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech within the law for staff, students and visiting speakers. Our complaint asks the OfS to examine what went wrong, and whether Oxford has the governance, training and decision-making structures needed to prevent a repeat. We have also called on the University to investigate potential breaches of its own policies, apologise to those affected, and commission an independent review rather than allowing university administrators to mark their own homework. The OfS has made clear that protest must not become a heckler’s veto. If universities cannot protect speakers and audiences from disruption inside the lecture theatre, the statutory protections Parliament has put in place risk becoming little more than words on paper. Read the Times Higher Education coverage below. timeshighereducation.com/news/oxford-re…

After months of drift, the Office for Students (OfS) free speech complaints scheme is finally going ahead — and here is the full text of the commencement regulations signed on Wednesday to prove it! From 1 September 2026, staff, visiting speakers and non-student members at English higher education providers will be able to complain directly to the OfS if they believe their lawful free speech or academic freedom rights have been infringed. With a specialist regulator able to investigate such complaints and recommend remedies — including requiring universities to review decisions, pay compensation or change their internal processes — this is a significant step forward. AFFS, alongside the Committee for Academic Freedom (@ComAcFreedom), Academics for Academic Freedom (@AFAF_freespeech) and the Free @SpeechUnion, has been pressing hard for this: challenging speech-restrictive policies upstream, raising concerns with universities and helping keep pressure on ministers. Our hope is that, in years to come, the scheme’s success may well be measured in how few complaints are brought. Its real power lies not in its ability to act punitively, but pre-emptively — with administrators operating in the knowledge that bad practice can now attract regulatory scrutiny, and that curtailing lawful speech simply for fear that someone, somewhere on campus may be offended by critical debate and robust discussion is no longer likely to pass muster. For alumni who care about the intellectual independence of their alma maters, this is a welcome step forward — and a reminder that sustained pressure can still make a difference.

6/ But free speech campaigners and groups -- @lucaf_london, @ComAcFreedom @AFFSUK @AFAF_freespeech @SpeechUnion -- kept the pressure up, pointing out that the scheme could be commenced by regulations. Credit to Jacqui Smith and Bridget Phillipson for listening to us.

I'm looking forward to this one-day conference at UCL next week in (belated) celebration of Alan Sokal's 70th birthday! There will be talks on the philosophy of science, academic freedom, the replication crisis, and related topics. homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucahrha/phil_…

Our associated campaign, Best Free Speech Practice (BFSP), has published a statement on the recent Cofnas v Emmanuel College judgment and what it means for EDI and protected beliefs in UK higher education. The court ruled that Dr Nathan Cofnas’ beliefs qualified for protection under the Equality Act, including his belief that genetic factors play a significant role in group differences such as intelligence, and his opposition to what he described as “woke” racial ideology in academia, which attributes such disparities primarily to social, historical and structural factors rather than heredity. BFSP neither endorses nor opposes Dr Cofnas’ views. Its concern is the broader principle that lawful dissent from ideas promoted or enforced under the banner of EDI may itself attract legal protection. That matters because universities increasingly use EDI frameworks to promote contested views about sex, race, identity, decolonisation and related issues. Many staff and students hold lawful dissenting views on those questions. Where EDI frameworks require ideological commitment, restrict protected beliefs, discipline lawful disagreement, or encourage complaints against dissenters, universities may create free speech failures and expose themselves to legal and regulatory risk. The Cofnas judgment forms part of a wider legal picture in which multiple beliefs opposing ideas commonly advanced under the EDI banner have been found to be protected. It also strengthens the argument that opposition to EDI itself, where EDI operates as a vehicle for enforcing contested orthodoxies, may attract legal protection. Read our full statement here: bfsp.uk/wp-content/upl…

An account of @michaelpforan’s second lecture @KebleOxford from @Jessica12uk who was there. @postgradafaf @StudentAFAF @AFFSUK @lucaf_london @acadofideas @spikedonline @LivingFreedomUK @SpeechUnion @SexMattersOrg afaf.org.uk/inside-the-lec…

@justsay_mother @HRA_Latest @ProfAliceS @DrKarleenG @IncitefulPod They have no justification for changing the wording around pregnancy in all the HRA official guidance which influences all UK researchers When the @HRA_Latest says "jump" researchers say "how high?". There was no equality impact assessment, yet this HRA EDI diktat was issued

The Sussex judgment shows why the HEFSA enforcement mechanisms are now needed more than ever: broader where it matters, firmer in the duties they impose, and offering a lower-stakes route to accountability than the blunt instrument of judicial review. researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-vie…

📰 The Herald has reported on AFFS’s warning to the University of Edinburgh over the use of mandatory EDI “commitment” requirements in academic recruitment and promotion. While much promoted under the EDI banner is uncontroversial — and in some cases legally required — universities also frequently use EDI frameworks to advance highly contested ideas associated with gender identity ideology and critical race theory. Recent case law has recognised that opposition to such beliefs is protected under the Equality Act. That matters because, once “commitment to EDI” becomes an essential criterion in recruitment or promotion, universities risk turning lawful dissent from contested ideas into a professional disadvantage — creating serious legal risks not just under the Equality Act, but under free speech legislation and the Human Rights Act. AFFS has now written formally to senior University officers and will report the University to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Charity Commission and the Scottish Funding Council.