Universities are entitled to cancel events involving gender critical speakers because such talks could “contaminate student life for hundreds if not thousands of people” – even if they do not attend the talk, a controversial new report by UK legal scholars argues.
Calling for UK universities to balance their duties between protecting free speech and preventing discrimination, a study by Daragh Murray and Emily Jones, both senior lecturers at the University of Essex’s School of Law and Human Rights, and barrister David Renton, from Garden Court Chambers, states that neither duty “overrides the other”, but institutions should be wary of “distress” caused to trans students by events on campus.
Painting a hypothetical situation in which a “module or degree course in trans issues was housed in a particular department, and the university then insisted on using the same premises to host a ‘gender critical’ event,” the report states that “distress would be felt in the contamination of a part of the university which holds a particular emotional value to certain staff and students.”
“In those circumstances, it is not realistic for a university to insist that the event must go ahead, on the reasoning that students do not need to attend, and cannot be offended if they do,” it continues.
Given how universities host events with external speakers in venues at the centre of a campus, posters advertising the event would also be “visible to most [or] every member of a university community, including...trans staff or students and their supporters,” the report explains.
In these circumstances, the “hosting of an unwanted event would contaminate student life for hundreds if not thousands of people,” it concludes, suggesting cancellation would be both lawful and justified.
However, the idea that events featuring gender critical speakers could “contaminate” university buildings has been strongly criticised, with one Twitter user insisting that “associating women with ‘contamination’ is total misogyny”.
Another ridiculed what they called the “magical thinking” invoked by the report, while another stated that the tropes of “pollution/uncleanness” would never be applied to other individuals who held different types of protected beliefs or characteristics.
Others noted the idea of “contamination” was reminiscent of caste-based hierarchies or “ancient” fears that menstruating women are somehow unclean and should be avoided.
The report has been further criticised for its assertion that UK university staff who produce “non-academic commentary” in outlets outside peer-reviewed journals, such as social media blogs or national newspapers, or on “subjects unrelated to those lecturers’ academic expertise”, are not covered by academic freedom protections, including the forthcoming Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.
Akua Reindorf, a barrister whose investigation into how two academics were disinvited from speaking at Essex over their views on gender led the university to apologise to the cancelled speakers, said this was incorrect. She also criticised what she said were other inaccuracies in the report, such as its claim that “the law protects employees from disciplinary action but that this protection ‘does not apply to actions (manifestations of such beliefs)’”.
“This is wrong,” stated Ms Reindorf, who explained that the European Convention on Human Rights “expressly protects manifestation of belief.”
The report on “Universities’ Legal Obligations regarding Trans Inclusion and Freedom of Expression” has been published on Essex’s Human Rights Blog, with the disclaimer that it “represents the views of the author(s) and does not reflect the position of the Human rights Centre or the University of Essex.” The university declined to comment.
The report also defends the right of students and staff to protest against individuals deemed to hold harmful views on transgender issues.
It lists several “instances of pro-trans expression curtailed by universities”, including “trans students and allies at Sussex University [who] were described by the university’s vice-chancellor in autumn 2021 as a ‘threat to cherished academic freedoms’ and threatened with investigation after they objected to a professor signing declarations which called for the repeal of the Gender Recognition Act” – a reference to the masked protests that led to the resignation in October 2021 of philosopher Kathleen Stock, who had opposed the reform of the GRA.
Commenting on the report, Dr Murray said he hoped it would address “a significant degree of misunderstanding as to what this right actually entails.”
“Importantly, freedom of expression does not protect a monologue. There is a right to speak and to protest that speech,” he said.
