
The candidates for the Chancellorship of Cambridge University were sent a series of questions on academic freedom and freedom of speech by Alumni for Freedom of Speech. A summary of some of my answers is below.
Are there problems with Freedom Speech in UK Universities?
In the UK today, it is often the political right that are most articulate about the importance of freedom of speech. However, there is a long-standing tradition of defence of freedom of speech on the left, including John Stuart Mill, Noam Chomsky, George Orwell, Rosa Luxemburg and John Mortimer.
Censorship rarely stays confined to one’s political enemies. For example, powers used to silence the far-right today may be used tomorrow against environmentalists or anti-war activists. Freedom of speech is not a protection for the powerful — it is a shield for the powerless.
Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of academic life and essential to the mission of universities as spaces for learning and inquiry. A university is a place where diverse ideas, perspectives, and arguments can be openly explored and debated—even when they are controversial or against orthodoxy (a point made in Isaiah Berlin’s book ‘Against the Current’).
Let’s look at two recent examples of violations of academic freedom from UK Universities.
Prof Jo Phoenix, a criminologist at the Open University, held gender-critical views — specifically, that sex is biological and cannot be changed. After expressing these views, in relation to prison policy and academic freedom, Prof Phoenix was subjected to a campaign of vilification by colleagues, including having events disrupted and experiencing a hostile work environment. In 2024, an Employment Tribunal ruled comprehensively in her favour, finding that the Open University failed to protect her freedom of expression and allowed a culture of intimidation to develop.
Prof David Miller, a sociologist at Bristol University, was dismissed in 2021 after making statements about Zionism and Israel. Miller claimed that Zionism was a racist ideology and accused Jewish student groups of being part of a “Zionist lobby”. This led to complaints of anti-semitism. Miller argued that his statements were legitimate academic critique of Israel and Zionism, protected under freedom of speech and academic freedom. An Employment Tribunal ruled that Miller had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed by the University of Bristol, and that his anti‑Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief protected under the UK Equality Act (2010).
In both cases, the Employment Tribunals laid stress on the obligation of employers to ensure that staff can feel confident in expressing their views. This is true whether or not one agrees with the views of Prof Phoenix or Prof Miller.
How do you think Cambridge performs?
Young scholars often find grant applications can be blocked or hindered by Heads of Department, compromising the principles of academic freedom that we hold so dear. The motivation here is very often academic jealousy or the desire to assert or gain control over grants. Sometimes, Heads of Department will refuse to permit grants to go forward, unless changes are made to the proposal, including their names added as co-investigators.
Human Resources (HR) departments and the central administration wield considerable power. Academics critical of the direction of the university can often face retaliation, with grants blocked or promotion denied. A shocking example is provided by the events described here. The University commissioned an independent report by a barrister into bullying events at its Institte of Astronomy. Several staff members pulled out of providing testimony to the barrister over “fears they would face retaliation” (a direct quote from the barrister’s report). In other words, staff feared to say what had happened to them, lest HR or central administration retaliate.
It strikes at the very heart of a university if academics are frightened of speaking up because of retaliation.
There are also many YouTube videos on the Cambridge University channel on which comments are disabled and it’s not possible to downvote the video, it’s only possible to upvote. This is a clear infringement of free speech. There is an example at this link. It’s especially concerning, as the subject of the video is precisely how we treat one another with courtesy and professionalism, even while robustly challenging each other’s views and opinions.
Yet, unbelievably, comments are censored. None of the participants in the video (which include Ms Emma Rampton, Prof Kamal Munir, Prof Nigel Peake and Prof Anne Ferguson-Smith) seem to recognise the contradiction.
How would you fix the problems?
Appointing a senior, experienced and independent officer responsible for promoting free speech and academic freedom is a vital step.
As part of my manifesto, I have called for the appointment of a University Ombudsman here. I have urged my fellow Chancellorship candidates to support this proposal and to pledge proper funding for the Ombudsman’s office. The Ombudsman’s role must be powerful, not tokenistic. It must have clear authority and independence from other University officers — including the Registrary, the Academic Secretary, the HR Director and the pro-Vice Chancellors.
If it’s just a symbolic appointment, it won’t change institutional behaviour or protect free speech or prevent bullying and harassment or look at other serious abuses.
Will you actively advocate for and support free speech protection and academic freedom as Chancellor?
I consider a proven commitment to free speech and academic freedom as a core requirement for all senior appointments. Anything less would compromise the essence of what Cambridge stands for.
In my campaign against bullying at the 21 Group (at significant personal and professional cost), I have already shown enormous commitment to safeguarding others with protected beliefs or characteristics.
No other candidate for the Chancellorship has assumed a direct and personal responsibility for this, to my knowledge.
Prof Wyn Evans (Institute of Astronomy)
10 Comments
Xerxes · 22 June 2025 at 12:29
Academic freedom and bullying in academic settings are deeply interconnected
Institutions may claim to uphold academic freedom while allowing bullying to persist—especially when the perpetrators are high-status individuals. Thus, defending academic freedom requires confronting academic bullying head-on.
The two cannot be meaningfully separated: where bullying thrives, freedom falters.
Eileen Nugent · 23 June 2025 at 10:37
I agree with the statement “Academic freedom and bullying in academic settings are deeply interconnected” but I do think the two can be meaningfully separated as there are examples of cases where bullying has occurred without any breach of academic freedom and vice versa. I also think when they do co-occur in a single case, the interactions between can them increase the complexity of the case beyond the sum of the complexity of the two base case types & that the increase in complexity can in itself act as a barrier to a solution being found independent of whether there is a will to solve the case.
The higher the effort required to solve a case [case complexity], the higher the will to solve the case must be for a solution to be found & not only that, the will must be coupled to the availability of the organisational resources necessary to solve a case of the complexity the organisation is generating. My own case is an academic freedom case & it’s a work-related stress regulation case but it’s not a bullying case. My case did not nucleate as a bullying situation, it nucleated as a misuse of fixed-term contract/three year 40% overwork situation & has been gathering additional elements for the > decade.
In terms of academic freedom I think there are two base organisational conditions that if met significantly increase the probability that no academic staff member has their academic freedom unnecessarily limited by the by the internal state of the university : operation of a fair procedure to rectify any unfair dismissal [employment rights backstop], functioning organisational work-related stress regulation system [health and safety rights backstop].
Anon · 23 June 2025 at 11:56
For academic bullies, ‘academic freedom’ is synonymous with the freedom to bully. That is the problem.
GamblingMan · 22 June 2025 at 17:36
Time for some odds — It’s Lord Browne’s to lose (unfortunately) is my guess
Browne …. Evens
El Erian …. 3/1
Smith ……. 4/1
Evans …….5/1
Toksvig…..10/1
Sandi Toksvig doesn’t seem to be very interested, I can’t find any recent statements from her. & she has kept a low profile
Seems as though Simon McDonald is keener on her candidacy than she is. He would have been a better candidate, actually
Jack Pot · 24 June 2025 at 10:17
#Some might say Browne is the real free speech candidate because if he wins I have this feeling all the scandals are going to come cascading out one after the other
Prospero · 24 June 2025 at 10:28
Seems plausible. Browne has bought another home — in Cambridge — in anticipation of winning
Browne may well win, but there will be a substantial number of academics in the University very, very unhappy with this. Of course, he’s responsible for the tuition fee debacle, with the chickens now coming home to roost. So it’s a dire prospect. Plenty of disgruntled folks may well mean scandals come out
ChancellorWatch · 24 June 2025 at 09:08
Mohamed A. El-Erians statement on free speech is here
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cambridges-next-chancellor-must-prioritise-free-speech/
Use https://12ft.io/
Statement seems short of substance but big on El-Erian (“Cambridge is where I am happiest, as my daughters will attest to”)
Anon · 24 June 2025 at 12:56
“Yes, this means listening to people with whom you disagree. Yet, by doing so, we have a better chance of advancing our collective understanding and mutual respect.”
This is a candidate who seems to have decided that all the challenges to Cambridge’s future are external. There’s no acknowledgement that a significant number of our current problems originate from within. There’s an assumption too that academic freedom and free speech will be of relevance only to the academic enterprise. So, he won’t be rocking the boat, and challenge the current management who, perhaps more than any external factor, have put academic freedom and free speech in jeopardy: by misusing Dignity at Work to shut up those who dare to speak up, by continuing to introduce precarities into academic careers through their employment and job creation policies, by undermining academic freedom when arbitrating on instances of disagreement and disputes in ways that are completely incompatible in just about every way with the university’s values – or at least the values the university claims to have.
A candidate who is oblivious or blind to the dysfunctionality of the current management, whose own sense of freedom of speech does not include addressing uncomfortable subjects, will achieve absolutely nothing – other than creating further opportunity for himself.
Stating the obvious · 24 June 2025 at 19:57
There is no freedom, academic or otherwise, without the ability to criticize an institution and its culture without fear of retaliation or ‘investigations.’
Fox · 25 June 2025 at 19:58
The Critic (bunch of right-wing Brexiteers) come out for Lord Browne
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/july-2025/a-dearth-of-qualified-candidates-for-cambridge-chancellor/