British authorities issued a record fine against one of the country’s universities on Wednesday for failing to “uphold the freedom of speech and academic freedom,” an escalation in the debate over student and staff rights on campus.
The Office for Students, the regulator for higher education in England, imposed a penalty of 585,000 pounds, more than $755,000, on the University of Sussex. The fine followed an investigation into the university that began more than three years ago after Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor, resigned saying that she had faced a campaign of harassment from students and activists over her views on gender identity.
Dr. Stock quit in 2021 after she was accused of being transphobic by students and activists for arguing that transgender women were not women. She said she faced a campaign of harassment, bullying and character assassination before quitting.
The university publicly defended Dr. Stock at the time. But on Wednesday, the Office for Students said the university’s policy statement on trans and nonbinary equality had created a “chilling effect” that could cause students and staff members to “self-censor.” The regulator said this included requiring course materials to “positively represent trans people and trans lives.” It also penalized the school for failures in government and management processes.
The university condemned the ruling, saying in a statement that it would make it impossible to create “policies to prevent abusive, bullying and harassing speech.” Sasha Roseneil, the university’s vice chancellor, promised to mount a legal challenge and said the regulator was mandating “libertarian free-speech absolutism as the fundamental principle for U.K. universities” and was “perpetuating the culture wars.”
The ruling comes as a debate rages over free speech and trans rights in the United States, with many universities trying to balance the right of free expression with preventing hate speech.
President Trump made transgender issues a campaign focus and in February effectively banned trans athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports. The administration has also been accused of targeting universities over their transgender policies.
The British government said in January that it would implement a new law to bolster academic freedom on campuses, but scrapped a provision that would have allowed anyone who claimed that their free speech had been restricted to take legal action against a university.
Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, said in a statement on Wednesday that the new measures were necessary to ensure that “students and academics are not muzzled by the chilling effect demonstrated in this case.”
“Free speech and academic freedom are non-negotiables in our universities, and I have been clear that where those principles are not upheld, robust action will be taken,” she said.
The fine imposed on the University of Sussex is the most significant demonstration yet of the regulator’s mandate. “It is entirely appropriate for universities to pursue equality objectives,” Arif Ahmed, the regulator’s director of free speech and academic freedom, said in a statement. “But,” he continued, “they must take care to do so without curtailing lawful speech and without creating the risk of indirect discrimination.”
Mr. Ahmed, who was appointed under the previous Conservative government, called the investigation “thorough” and said it had found “significant and serious breaches” of regulations.
The university disagreed. Dr. Roseneil called the findings “egregious and concocted.”
She said the method of the investigation was “completely unacceptable,” because the regulator had not spoken with any university employees and met only with Dr. Stock. Dr. Roseneil also called the fine “wholly disproportionate.”
The university framed the ruling as part of longstanding tensions between the higher education industry and the regulator. In 2023, a report by a committee in the House of Lords, the appointed upper chamber of Britain’s Parliament, found that the regulator’s approach was “arbitrary, overly controlling and unnecessarily combative.” In 2024, a government-commissioned review found that it was seen as “adversarial and overly legalistic.”
Dr. Stock did not respond to a request for comment.
