Pro-Palestine university activists have faced restrictions on their activities [Getty]
The UK government has confirmed plans to reintroduce the Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act, a controversial piece of legislation initially passed under the Conservative government in 2023.
The act, designed to protect free speech on university campuses, allows the Office for Students (OfS) to fine institutions for failing to uphold free expression.
The original bill required universities to “secure” and “promote” freedom of speech and academic expression while granting the Office for Students the power to issue fines or sanctions against higher education institutions and student unions that failed to comply.
It also introduced a new complaints system, allowing students, staff, and guest speakers to seek compensation if their free-speech rights were violated.
Last summer, as the law was about to take effect, the government paused its implementation. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson justified the delay, stating it would provide time to reassess the potential harms of the legislation.
Initially, it included provisions allowing individuals to sue universities and student unions over free speech violations, but these elements have been removed in the revised version.
Confirming the changes, Philipson said: “The fear of litigation could hurt rather than help free speech. Universities may have decided against inviting challenging speakers to avoid ending up in court, and nobody wants that.”
Supressing pro-Palestine voicesÂ
Critics have argued the law could suppress student protests and disproportionately affect those voicing support for Palestine. Protests erupted over the law’s initial suspension, particularly from pro-Palestinian activists who accused the government of silencing criticism of Israel.
This tension has been heightened amid Israel’s indiscriminate war on Gaza, which has sparked widespread solidarity actions across the UK and other countries.
Amira Campbell, President of the National Union of Students (NUS), welcomed the revised legislation.
“With the threat of complex legal responsibilities and new regulation no longer hanging over them, our member students’ unions can get back to doing what we all do best: supporting students to thrive, debate ideas and take part in campus life,” she said.
Under the updated legislation, student unions will no longer bear direct legal responsibility for upholding free speech but will be expected to support their universities’ efforts.
Balancing free speech and student rights
Shoaib M Khan, a human rights lawyer and vice chair of the UK-based Human Rights Lawyers Association, raised concerns about the act’s broader implications.
He tells The New Arab: “The act was introduced when people, including students, objected to certain divisive personalities speaking at their university.Â
“[It] then became dormant and has now been raised again, but with certain changes. One change, that seems to be a positive one, is that the new legal obligations will apply to universities but not to student unions. Protecting free speech is a responsibility of universities, not always of the students themselves.
“While this law would ensure stricter accountability for universities, it would also make it more difficult to exclude people who may have harmful views or who may negatively influence students.”
Critics of the legislation have questioned its necessity, arguing that universities and law enforcement agencies should instead focus on safeguarding students’ rights to protest and express their views.
Mr Khan argues that students should be entitled to express their views and to participate in demonstrations and protests, even on university campuses.
“So it remains to be seen whether this new law will in fact strengthen students and their right to protest or mainly cause universities and students to be forced to host guests who it would be better to exclude,” he adds.
“What is more important than ensuring a wide range of guest speakers is that students themselves can speak out against unfairness and human rights breaches, without being targeted by their university or disciplined for protesting.”
Â
