Committee for Academic Freedom @ComAcFreedom

CAF has today submitted Freedom of Information requests to 130 UK universities, seeking to establish the extent to which aggressive legal threats from wealthy individuals, companies and other powerful interests may be inhibiting academic research. Why now? Earlier this month, MPs debated the need for universal anti-SLAPP legislation. The House formally recognised the threat that Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) pose to “public interest research”, while Courts Minister Sarah Sackman identified cases involving “academic research” among those falling outside the UK’s existing statutory protections. That’s good news. While SLAPPs are most commonly associated with attempts to intimidate journalists and campaigners, there are well-documented cases in which academics and publishers have faced similar legal pressure over their work. Two Private Members’ Bills now seek to extend anti-SLAPP protection beyond its existing narrow focus on economic crime. The Government is working with both sponsors, and the Telegraph has reported that it is expected to back Sir John Whittingdale’s Bill, due for second reading on 27 November. As a member of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, CAF wants to establish what legal pressure on academic research actually looks like across UK higher education, and ensure that the Government’s welcome recognition of the problem is carried through into the legislation that emerges. Institutional records can reveal only part of the picture, however — which is why we also want to hear from you. Some legal threats may be handled privately by academics, sometimes with the assistance of a trade union or publisher, without ever reaching a university’s central legal office. In other cases, the threat of ruinously expensive litigation may cause research to be narrowed, abandoned or left unpublished long before proceedings are issued. So if you have faced legal threats over your academic work — or if concern about possible litigation has affected what you researched, wrote or published — please contact us confidentially at [email protected].

Last week, CAF published an audit of the 20 English Russell Group universities. We found that only 5 of the 37 staff grievance and disciplinary procedures we could verify, and only 7 of 20 free-speech codes of practice, were advertising the new OfS Free Speech Complaints Scheme — despite the regulator itself saying that providers should advertise the scheme in these and other similar documents. Getting these numbers up is important, because the scheme will only be as effective as the cases that reach it. If the pipeline is restricted because the route is poorly advertised, quite apart from the impact on individual academics, there is a wider danger that the university lobby will point to low complaint numbers as evidence that there was never much of a campus free-speech problem in the first place, and that the scheme is an unnecessary waste of money. The OfS has given providers until 1 January 2027 to get this right. But, just in case any of them forget to remember, we’ve been looking for other ways to put pressure on them to do the right thing. With that in mind, CAF has now responded to Acas’s consultation on its new statutory Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. We’ve proposed a new principle requiring employers, where a relevant statutory or regulatory complaints mechanism exists, to take reasonable steps to signpost workers to authoritative information about it. If adopted, that would give universities a potentially significant financial incentive to get this right. An unreasonable failure to signpost the OfS scheme in a grievance or disciplinary process engaging an academic’s freedom of speech or academic freedom could then contribute to an uplift of up to 25% if that dispute subsequently deteriorates into a qualifying Employment Tribunal claim. Our full analysis of how the 20 English Russell Group universities are currently advertising the OfS scheme is here: afcomm.org.uk/2026/09/14/new…

Another important piece of work by CAF to protect freedom of speech within the law. One of the UK’s leading professional bodies has amended its Code of Conduct after adopting our recommendations in full, following a constructive process of engagement over concerns that its harassment provisions inadvertently risked restricting lawful expression. Full credit to the Royal Microscopical Society for engaging so positively with the concerns we raised and acting on them. Full story here: afcomm.org.uk/2026/09/17/roy… If you are worried that your organisation’s policies or training materials risk encouraging an over-broad approach to harassment, protected belief or lawful professional disagreement, please get in touch at [email protected].

@ComAcFreedom That’s impressive. Well done you and the Royal Microscopical Society. Hope you are looking into the Royal Society of Chemistry’s publication policy - they need your help!

Conflict on Campus, a one-day event taking place in central Edinburgh on 21 October, will bring together academics, lawyers and senior university figures to discuss how Scottish higher education can respond constructively to conflict and disagreement on campus. Speakers include Professor Arif Ahmed, Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom at the @officestudents, leading employment, discrimination and human rights barrister @akuareindorf KC, and CAF Advisory Board member Professor Alice Sullivan (@ProfAliceS). The programme will examine the purpose of the university, feature first-hand accounts from those who have seen universities struggle to uphold open inquiry in the face of internal and external pressures, and include reflections from senior leaders on handling contentious issues. Interactive workshops will focus on #academicfreedom, and on protest and disruption. The event is aimed particularly at academics, university leaders, staff responsible for conduct and speaker events, EDI leads and student union representatives. A limited number of subsidised tickets are available for £55, including lunch and refreshments. Further details and booking are available via Eventbrite: eventbrite.co.uk/e/conflict-on-…

Are you referring to Dave Harris and Martyn Hammersley who privately (and politely) raised concerns with Cambridge over plagiarism back in 2023? Or the 97-page dossier detailing extensive plagiarism in his PhD thesis that I submitted in September 2025? Both of these approaches were entirely legitimate, I would argue

@ComAcFreedom 🧵A UCL biology student emailed me on behalf of a UCL student group asking why I signed the letter supporting Cofnas’ academic freedom, given some think he holds v problematic views. I replied that i signed the letter because I agreed with the contents. And…

This witch hunt is so ridiculous and disgusting.

Committee for Academic Freedom @ComAcFreedom

7 days ago

The institutional role and associated privileges of one of the academics who signed the open letter raising #academicfreedom concerns about the treatment of Nathan Cofnas at Ghent University may now be at risk. While that is all we can say while the matter is live and CAF is

7 25 124 9K 13

After 21 Group wrote on treatment of Cambridge University student Roshaan Khattak & his work on Balochistan, the website was attacked The same happened to the Index on Censorship Threats to academic freedom in UK Universities are real & dangerous @ComAcFreedom

Although I signed the other letter supporting the Ghent decision to open an investigation into Cofnas, I absolutely do not support the signatories of this letter being targeted like this. Academics disagree about the Ghent/Cofnas incident and that's OK.

Committee for Academic Freedom @ComAcFreedom

7 days ago

The institutional role and associated privileges of one of the academics who signed the open letter raising #academicfreedom concerns about the treatment of Nathan Cofnas at Ghent University may now be at risk. While that is all we can say while the matter is live and CAF is

7 25 124 9K 13

The Office for Students’ new free-speech complaints scheme went live on 1 September, giving academics a new, free-to-use route for challenging restrictions on lawful speech and #academicfreedom. For the first time, eligible complainants can ask the regulator to determine whether a university has breached its statutory #freespeech duties. Where a complaint is justified or partly justified, the OfS can recommend meaningful redress, including restoration of an invitation to speak, reinstatement of a research programme, changes to university policies and financial payments to complainants. To coincide with the launch, CAF has created a new Casework Support page designed to help ensure that cases reaching the OfS are as clearly framed and carefully prepared as possible. It includes practical guidance on getting a complaint right, why identifying the relevant issues from the earliest internal university stage matters, and how CAF can help. afcomm.org.uk/afcomm-org-uk-… There’s also a quick interactive checker that takes you through no more than nine questions about your circumstances, explains why each matters, and gives an initial indication of whether the OfS scheme may apply and when it may be worth contacting CAF. For those who want to understand the law beneath the scheme, our legal guide explains the statutory duties underpinning it. If you think your freedom of speech or academic freedom is being restricted, email CAF at [email protected]. And please do spread the word. There will be academics across the country who do not yet know that the landscape changed this week, including some at institutions where the new complaints scheme may not receive quite the prominence any of us would like.

This is an issue I am facing on a daily basis right now. Both my conference and my book project have been attacked by activist academics and postgraduate students.

Committee for Academic Freedom @ComAcFreedom

7 days ago

The institutional role and associated privileges of one of the academics who signed the open letter raising #academicfreedom concerns about the treatment of Nathan Cofnas at Ghent University may now be at risk. While that is all we can say while the matter is live and CAF is

7 25 124 9K 13

Individual academics are free to withdraw, but there is an important question about the point at which a series of individual withdrawals ends and an orchestrated effort by one or more people to make a colleague professionally untouchable begins. If this starts to have a wider professional impact, CAF could certainly offer support. Universities in England have statutory duties to take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech within the law for their academics, including academic freedom, and that can include publicly supporting an academic facing pressure over lawful expression.

The institutional role and associated privileges of one of the academics who signed the open letter raising #academicfreedom concerns about the treatment of Nathan Cofnas at Ghent University may now be at risk. While that is all we can say while the matter is live and CAF is offering support, it is far from an isolated case. CAF has been contacted by a growing number of signatories facing complaints, institutional pressure and professional ostracism for putting their names to the letter. If you signed the letter and are now facing pressure from colleagues or your institution, please get in touch. CAF can advise, intervene with universities and, in the most egregious cases, arrange specialist legal assistance. Our latest: afcomm.org.uk/2026/09/15/aca…

Institutions should know better.

Committee for Academic Freedom @ComAcFreedom

7 days ago

The institutional role and associated privileges of one of the academics who signed the open letter raising #academicfreedom concerns about the treatment of Nathan Cofnas at Ghent University may now be at risk. While that is all we can say while the matter is live and CAF is

7 25 124 9K 13

🚨 Two weeks on from the launch of the OfS Free Speech Complaints Scheme, CAF research has found that most Russell Group universities are ignoring the regulator’s instructions to advertise it properly. As long ago as April, the Government announced that the scheme would open on 1 September, allowing academics and other eligible complainants to take free-speech complaints to the regulator. The OfS’s own rules say that, “as soon as reasonably practicable after 1 September 2026”, universities should advertise the scheme “in a prominent place” in documents including freedom of speech codes of practice and disciplinary, complaints, appeals and grievance procedures. So CAF reviewed the freedom of speech codes, associated complaints material, staff grievance and disciplinary procedures, and Report + Support portals of all 20 English Russell Group universities. We found: ❌ Only 7/20 (35%) clearly signpost the OfS scheme in their free-speech materials ❌ Just 5/37 (13.5%) staff grievance and disciplinary procedures mention it ❌ Not a single Report + Support portal mentioned the OfS complaints scheme, and only 2/20 (10%) even offered users a category for restrictions on freedom of speech or expression. No doubt universities will argue that, because the scheme only applies to action or inaction taking place on or after 1 September, and the OfS will normally wait until any relevant internal process has concluded or 90 days have elapsed, there is no great rush. But would that attitude be considered acceptable in almost any other area of rights protection? Is it really possible to imagine a Russell Group university taking the same approach to new requirements under, say, an amended Public Sector Equality Duty — either as they appeared in statute or as a charity such as Stonewall chose to render them in its university-facing guidance? Academics need to know from the outset that a university’s handling of a free-speech or academic-freedom dispute may ultimately be challenged before an independent regulator. Whether this lackadaisical attitude among senior university administrators continues beyond 1 January remains to be seen. But the widespread failure to advertise the scheme so far hardly suggests a sector eager to make it easy for academics to take its decisions outside the institution for independent scrutiny. Full analysis: afcomm.org.uk/2026/09/14/rus…

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

@loveradio3 @RobotTheory @SpeechUnion Or contact CAF!