Sussex university fined £585k in free speech row

[g3org3y]

BBC said:

The University of Sussex has been fined £585,000 by the higher education regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), for failing to uphold freedom of speech.

It follows the case of Prof Kathleen Stock, who left the university in 2021 after being accused of transphobia for her views on sex and gender issues.

The OfS criticised the university's policy statement on Trans and Non-Binary equality, saying its requirement to "positively represent trans people" and an assertion that "transphobic propaganda [would] not be tolerated" could lead staff and students to "self-censor".

BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9vr4vjzgqo

[chemistry]

Good.

[vikingaero]

I particularly like this bit:

"If you go to university you must be prepared to have your views challenged, hear contrary opinions and be exposed to uncomfortable truths.

It seems that many students see things in only black and white and that only their opinion matters. Welcome to the real world.

[Gecko1978]

Freedom of speech an expression goes both ways. So while a person has a right to identify as they please so does someone else to not agree.

[Mandat]

BBC said:

The OfS criticised the university's policy statement on Trans and Non-Binary equality, saying its requirement to "positively represent trans people" and an assertion that "transphobic propaganda [would] not be tolerated" could lead staff and students to "self-censor".

The epitome of discrimination & bigotry.

[Cliftonite]

The attitude of the University seemed to have been quite different when the Professor Kathleen Stock matter first developed in 2021?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-58841887

[Countdown]

Mandat said:

BBC said:

The OfS criticised the university's policy statement on Trans and Non-Binary equality, saying its requirement to "positively represent trans people" and an assertion that "transphobic propaganda [would] not be tolerated" could lead staff and students to "self-censor".

The epitome of discrimination & bigotry.

I stand to be corrected but isn't there a difference between "Gender critical views" and "Transphobia"? I thought the latter was illegal?

i.e. It's fine to say stuff such as "Transwomen aren't the same as women" but not ok to say "I think Trans people are disgusting perverted creatures who should be euthanised"?

[Vanden Saab]

Countdown said:

Mandat said:

BBC said:

The OfS criticised the university's policy statement on Trans and Non-Binary equality, saying its requirement to "positively represent trans people" and an assertion that "transphobic propaganda [would] not be tolerated" could lead staff and students to "self-censor".

The epitome of discrimination & bigotry.

I stand to be corrected but isn't there a difference between "Gender critical views" and "Transphobia"? I thought the latter was illegal?

i.e. It's fine to say stuff such as "Transwomen aren't the same as women" but not ok to say "I think Trans people are disgusting perverted creatures who should be euthanised"?

Yes,but saying that transwomen are actually men was put in the transphobic category which is where all the problems have stemmed from.

[Countdown]

Vanden Saab said:

Yes,but saying that transwomen are actually men was put in the transphobic category which is where all the problems have stemmed from.

Thanks for clarifying.

I personally wouldn't say that because I assume Transwomen are going to get upset and it doesn't actually achieve anything. However if it's legal it's legal.

[JagLover]

Another Labour politician saying something sensible in that article. They seem to have learnt after their disastrous first few months.

As for the main subject of the article I suspect the Trans campaign reached a high water mark a few years back, since when the related absurdities of the ideology, whether that be biological men in women's sports or in women's prisons, has created a push back. Politicians are scrambling to catch up.

Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 26th March 10:47

[mwstewart]

The real concern for me is how does a supposed higher education facility end up being taken in by this tribal nonsense in the first place. The fine is merely addressing a symptom of the rot that is well set in within further education establishments.

[rohrl]

Cliftonite said:

The attitude of the University seemed to have been quite different when the Professor Kathleen Stock matter first developed in 2021?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-58841887

Different VC at the time by the look of it.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

mwstewart said:

The real concern for me is how does a supposed higher education facility end up being taken in by this tribal nonsense in the first place. The fine is merely addressing a symptom of the rot that is well set in within further education establishments.

I suppose that's all fines ever do. The hope is it encourages universities to change the culture which gives rise to it.

[Gordon Hill]

mwstewart said:

The real concern for me is how does a supposed higher education facility end up being taken in by this tribal nonsense in the first place. The fine is merely addressing a symptom of the rot that is well set in within further education establishments.

Imagine what would happen to any individual speaking out against this absurd ideology.

[ChocolateFrog]

Would be satisfying if they increased the fine due to the frivolous appeal.

[Newc]

Countdown said:

Vanden Saab said:

Yes,but saying that transwomen are actually men was put in the transphobic category which is where all the problems have stemmed from.

Thanks for clarifying.

I personally wouldn't say that because I assume Transwomen are going to get upset

Which, if you were the University of Countdown, would cost you £585k.

[loafer123]

My sister's partner works there.

He said the bullying of Katherine Stock was horrendous, that the leadership did nothing to stop it, and that people who were brave enough to stand up for her were intimidated.

[Countdown]

Newc said:

Countdown said:

Vanden Saab said:

Yes,but saying that transwomen are actually men was put in the transphobic category which is where all the problems have stemmed from.

Thanks for clarifying.

I personally wouldn't say that because I assume Transwomen are going to get upset

Which, if you were the University of Countdown, would cost you £585k.

Super confused

I wouldn't say Transwomen were actually men. However I wouldn't stop anybody else from saying it.

I have to say this Trans stuff seems to be a minefield. You're damned if you do and (damned if you don't.

[Newc]

Countdown said:

Newc said:

Countdown said:

I personally wouldn't say that because I assume Transwomen are going to get upset

Which, if you were the University of Countdown, would cost you £585k.

Super confused

I wouldn't say Transwomen were actually men. However I wouldn't stop anybody else from saying it.

There are three pieces to the free speech part of the Sussex case. First is that making a factual statement (if 'men' is adult human males, then transwomen are men) is permitted in all circumstances.

Second is that voicing an opinion (non-binary is an idiotic concept) is always permitted except for some things which are illegal activities under other laws (eg incitement to violence, racism).

Third, nobody should be afraid to exercise their rights under one and two for fear of arbitrary physical or employment reprisals.

Universities have a number of legal obligations as part of their privileges, including operating an environment where all the above can happen. Sussex failed to do this, hence the fine. It wasn't what the Professor said that was the problem, it was that she suffered reprisals and that other people who may have agreed with her statements therefore felt unable to voice them.

[8.4L 154]

Newc said:

There are three pieces to the free speech part of the Sussex case. First is that making a factual statement (if 'men' is adult human males, then transwomen are men) is permitted in all circumstances.

Second is that voicing an opinion (non-binary is an idiotic concept) is always permitted except for some things which are illegal activities under other laws (eg incitement to violence, racism).

Third, nobody should be afraid to exercise their rights under one and two for fear of arbitrary physical or employment reprisals.

Universities have a number of legal obligations as part of their privileges, including operating an environment where all the above can happen. Sussex failed to do this, hence the fine. It wasn't what the Professor said that was the problem, it was that she suffered reprisals and that other people who may have agreed with her statements therefore felt unable to voice them.

You haven't read the report have you, it says no such thing.