Extract from Education committee transcript: Universities and Higher Education: Antisemitism and Freedom of Speech - Mar 22

Witnesses: Nicola Dandridge, Professor Debra Humphris, Clare Marchant and Quintin McKellar.

Chair: Good morning, everybody. Thank you very much for coming. Just before I begin and ask the panel to introduce themselves, I wanted to point out that the National Union of Students was invited to appear before our Committee this morning because we rightly wanted to include the voices of students on universities and higher education. I have to say that the NUS have shown great reluctance to appear before us today. We first contacted them more than three weeks ago, inviting them to appear, and got very little response. It took six emails and seven phone calls before the NUS finally agreed to send a representative, and then we were told yesterday at 4.30 pm that the NUS could no longer attend, because their representative was unwell. We asked for a replacement and that was refused.

It is disappointing that the NUS have responded in this way and given the appearance that they are not willing to appear before our Committee. We will call them in for a separate session. They should be accountable to Parliament. The Committee is aware that students are facing multiple issues at present and the NUS has been vocal on this front. There are also some recent controversies on antisemitism involving the National Union of Students and it would have been good to question them on that. I genuinely find it incomprehensible that one of the key bodies responsible for representing the voices of students was, in essence, unwilling to come and talk to this Committee about the important issues facing students in higher education and it is sad that the voice of students will be missing from today’s discussion.

Can the panel introduce themselves and their titles for the benefit of those watching on Parliament TV?

Clare Marchant: Morning. I am Clare Marchant, chief executive at UCAS.

Quintin McKellar: Hello. I am Quintin McKellar from the University of Hertfordshire.

Chair: I should declare that I know Quintin quite well, and many of my constituents go to your university. It is a pleasure to have you here today. 

Professor Humphris: I am Debra Humphris, vice-chancellor of the University of Brighton and chair of the University Alliance.

Nicola Dandridge: I am Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Office for Students.

Q1                Chair: Thank you. I will direct my first two questions predominantly to the Office for Students. The Campaign Against Antisemitism and King’s College London published a survey of the British public’s views towards Jews and a poll of the Jewish community. The study found that 92% thought antisemitism in universities was a problem and 84% said it is a very big problem. What is the Office for Students doing to not just combat antisemitism at universities but require universities to adopt the international definition of antisemitism?

Nicola Dandridge: In terms of what we are doing to combat antisemitism more broadly, we have very strong and productive relationships with the Union of Jewish Students and other representative groups, such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews, for example. We have focused quite a lot of our work on a statement of expectations that is designed to prevent and then address harassment, including antisemitic harassment. We published that last year, setting out very clearly what we expect registered providers, universities and colleges to do. We will be evaluating the impact, including looking at the impact on Jewish students.

Q2                Chair: The reason I ask that is that you are the regulator for universities, yet in the case of David Miller, who after a long time was removed by Bristol University, there was very little evidence of you taking any action or intervening. The only reason anything happened was that academics, parliamentarians, the Jewish community and charities raised concerns with Bristol University. What action does the OfS intend to take when academics or institutions breach the IHRA definition of antisemitism?

Nicola Dandridge: Moving on to the IHRA definition, we have again worked with Jewish groups to work out how best to document who has signed up and who hasn’t. We have been very public in communicating which universities and colleges have signed up to the IHRA definition and which haven’t. We are in the process of reviewing that in the context of our statement of expectations.

Q3                Chair: What are you going to do to intervene as a regulator, in a nutshell?

Nicola Dandridge: If universities don’t sign up?

Chair: If there are cases like the David Miller case at Bristol University.

Nicola Dandridge: We have powers and responsibilities in relation to a variety of regulatory conditions, including free speech, but we are not the enforcer of equality principles. I think we would expect universities to make sure that they are taking steps to promote free speech, comply with their—

Q4                Chair: Surely as a regulator you want Jewish people to feel that universities are a safe place?

Nicola Dandridge: Absolutely, and we are channelling our energies through the statement of expectations to prevent and tackle harassment. That is exactly why we are doing it.

Q5                Chair: I am still not clear exactly what you are doing in substance. What are you doing to deal with this problem?

Nicola Dandridge: We have channelled it through these expectations, to prevent and address harassment against students, including Jewish students. We have also published a large number of resources on our website where we identify good practice in dealing with antisemitism. We are documenting the numbers of universities and colleges who have signed up to the IHRA definition. We will carry on working in this area.

Q6                Chair: You will have seen the reports by LBC and Theo Usherwood, possibly, about the rapper Lowkey. He was announced to be opening the session of the NUS conference at the end of this month. He has made a number of antisemitic comments. I will quote one of them: “The mainstream media has weaponised the Jewish heritage of Zelensky, the President of Ukraine, to try and stave off these genuine inquiries into the nature of the groups fighting in Ukraine”. He also supported David Miller, who we discussed before. What assessment do you make of the response by the National Union of Students, who said in part of their statement, “While we welcome genuine political debate, we have been sad to see the use of harassment and misinformation against Lowkey. We condemn these tactics used against anybody”?

Nicola Dandridge: We do not regulate the National Union of Students.

Q7                Chair: Yes, but clearly this is an issue affecting universities and students. Would you not be interested in it?

Nicola Dandridge: If it has an impact on university students.

Chair: Well it does have an impact on university students, because it is very threatening to Jewish students.

Nicola Dandridge: We have not received any notifications of that.

Q8                Chair: So you would not have a discussion—a dialogue—with the National Union of Students when there are big issues like this?

Nicola Dandridge: I only read about this yesterday, so I haven’t had a chance to talk about it with colleagues yet; it is just too soon.

Q9                Chair: Would that be something you would do? Surely you would want to know what on earth was going on.

Nicola Dandridge: When I read it, I thought I do need to know what is going on, but as I said, I only read it yesterday, so it is extremely recent.

Q10            Chair: What more can be done by the OfS to prevent that type of behaviour from occurring again and to make sure that we do not have this upsurge of antisemitic incidents at universities?

Nicola Dandridge: I think we need to carry on working very closely with Jewish groups to identify what they would find most helpful, particularly the Union of Jewish Students. Personally, what I think we are doing at the OfS is prioritising making our statement of expectations work. We will be reviewing how effective that is at the end of this year, with a view to seeing whether we need to take further regulatory action if it is not successful, but I hope it will have an impact. The most useful thing we can do is focus on that intervention, which is quite significant.

Q11            Chair: I do not know if Quintin or Professor Humphris would like to make a final comment, given that you represent so many universities? Quintin, you go first.

Quintin McKellar: First, it is important to say that Universities UK is categorically against discrimination of any type. Most universities have policies that actually exceed the requirements of the IHRA, both in terms of breadth and depth—in fact, including things like positive actions. I think some universities have had a concern about the imposition of the IHRA within their own polices. But, Jewish staff and students have got specific issues; at my university we have established a group specifically to support and help our Jewish staff and students.

Harassment against ethnic minorities does happen; it is abhorrent. UUK have reviewed and brought out recommendations, which universities are now signed up to, regarding discrimination and harassment. That is a positive move, but we want to try and eliminate discrimination of all kinds.

Professor Humphris: Certainly across the Universities Alliance, there is increasingly an incredibly diverse range of staff and students across the universities, and equality, diversity and inclusion are taken seriously at every single one of them. To use the example of the power of the OfS lever the statement of expectations on harassment might sound quite thin, but there is a huge amount in that. Certainly at my university, as a consequence of that, we have a whole campaign—a whole infrastructure—called #neverok for staff and student disclosures. We have never had the data, but we are now getting it so that we can investigate. I welcome the OfS expectations.

Q12            Chair: One final thing on this. I do think the OfS is sleepy on this issue and should be much more proactive intervening, given that antisemitism is a growing problem in our universities. I just think the OfS has priorities on other issues and does not treat this in the way that it should.

Nicola Dandridge: I do not accept that we do not think this is a serious issue. We do, and we are dealing with it in a targeted, thoughtful and sustainable way.

Q13            Chair: It is certainly below the radar. As I have said, there was hardly any involvement at all with you and Bristol University—as far as I am aware—given what happened with David Miller.

Nicola Dandridge: We have been in touch with the University of Bristol, but I cannot talk about individual cases.

Chair: My colleagues want to ask some questions on freedom of speech at universities. I am going to start with Tom.

Q14            Tom Hunt: I think that myself and a large number of colleagues were shocked by a recent decision by the University of Nottingham to strip Tony Sewell of his honorary degree. We were shocked—really shocked—and concerned about what that decision says about the extent to which some of our leading universities truly respect free speech and different thoughts. I think it makes a nonsense of the claim that the free speech Bill is not needed; quite clearly, it is needed—and that is evidence of it. Do you think the free speech Bill goes far enough towards ensuring that those kinds of decisions do not happen?

Nicola Dandridge: We have been very clear that we think that the Bill is needed, and that there is a serious, evidenced issue about the lack of free speech in universities. We will be working with Government as the Bill progresses and gets implemented. It will create considerable and significant new powers that will enable the Office for Students to tackle issues of free speech more effectively than our powers allow at the moment.

Q15            Tom Hunt: Issues such as cancelling people like Tony Sewell, who just promote a world view that might differ slightly from the world view of many students but is within the parameters of legitimate debate?

Nicola Dandridge: The Bill, if implemented, will give us significant new powers to require universities to promote and protect free speech explicitly. At the moment, we have powers, but they are indirect. What the Bill does is give very direct powers, so we would be able to challenge situations such as that.

Tom Hunt: The final thing I will say is this. There are a lot of these debates that kick off from time to time in the media, but I must just stress the extent and the large number of colleagues who were appalled by that decision by the University of Nottingham. A letter signed by about 60 MPs will be going to the University of Nottingham. We will not let it lie.

Chair: I find it astonishing that some people who have allegedly made controversial statements regarding China and the genocide of the Uyghurs, for example, have had honorary degrees at that university, yet Tony Sewell is refused—or his honorary doctorate is withdrawn. I think it’s pretty bad.

Q16            Miriam Cates: I just want to come in on that. Some recent research published by the Legatum Institute in January on academic freedoms showed that 41% of academics on campus feel the need to self-censor, and suggested that 16% of academics disagree that limits on freedom of speech undermine the core principles on which universities are founded. I think there have been moves in recent years to prioritise people—particularly students and young people—feeling safe from feelings of offence and having their views challenged, over freedom of speech. Is that something you recognise? Are you concerned about it? And how can universities be proactive in growing a culture where people do feel confident to come across views that they disagree with? Who shall I start with? Clare.

Clare Marchant: UCAS is more concerned with the 750,000 students who progress from school and college to university. It’s that transition that we are really interested in: how much are we creating an inclusive environment as they arrive at university?

We recently did, and we are trying to do, deep insights work on different communities. The recent publication was on LGBTQ+ students and how they feel and the support that they need. We have one coming up later in the spring about disabled students. I think our role as a charity is to say, “What does that experience feel like?”, in talking to those 750,000 students, and to say, “What can both schools and colleges and universities do to help with that transition?” That is how I see UCAS’s role in the preparatory piece as you go into the first year—in the context of inclusive environments, which help with freedom of speech.

Q17            Miriam Cates: Just to push back on that slightly, do you not think that the emphasis on protecting people’s feelings is actually leading to this belief that it’s wrong to make people feel uncomfortable intellectually? Actually, feeling uncomfortable intellectually is the driving force for academic creativity. Isn’t almost cushioning the feelings of students leading to the problem?

Clare Marchant: In actual fact, in some of our recent insights work, that is not what students are saying. It’s not about, “Be careful with my feelings.” It’s about, “Put me in touch with networks. Tell me what support is available.” It’s not, “Be careful with my feelings.” That is what we are hearing from different groups of students. It will depend on which group of students we are speaking to, but that is what they are saying. And actually there is some really encouraging data from the schools and colleges end of things to say that students are feeling more able to speak up, be challenged and have challenging debates. I think that’s actually quite encouraging for the secondary education side of things.

Miriam Cates: Brilliant—thank you. Quintin, do you want to come in on that?

Quintin McKellar: I think most universities would go to the ends of the earth to maintain freedom of speech, but you are right, and I think we all are concerned about cancel culture. I think we are all concerned about the issues that are suppressing freedom of speech. But let me just give you an example as to why this is so difficult—the issues around pro-Russian propaganda being put forward by colleagues in some universities. I should say that it is probably two colleagues out of 430,000 colleagues; nevertheless, it is still an issue. Should we uphold free speech in that circumstance? These are not simple issues. It’s a question of trying to get our heads around the freedom of speech Bill and how it is going to impact on the Prevent legislation, the equalities Acts, employment law and so on, and trying to make sure that it is actually done in a proportionate and sensible way. But I think I would speak for the whole sector in saying that we are absolutely behind freedom of speech.

Miriam Cates: Thank you. Debra, do you have anything to add?

Professor Humphris: I think the issue goes to the heart of the question that you raised, which is about creating a meaningful culture in which we have academic challenge of views and positions and an environment for the transition of students into university, and ensuring we put that in place and that that is supported. Nobody has a right not to be offended. For people to be able to learn from that and understand differing perspectives is an incredibly important part of the transition to our institutions for students coming from schools or colleges or for adults coming in. We have to have a healthy, challenging culture; that’s where curiosity and intellectual drive come from.

Miriam Cates: Nicola, do you have anything to add?

Nicola Dandridge: I largely agree with colleagues here. Clearly, free speech is fundamental to the success of higher education in this country. I share your concern about self-censorship; I think the evidence is very compelling on that. That is precisely why I think the free speech Bill is important, because it tackles that. It legitimises people saying, “We have a problem, and this is it.” We welcome the Bill and think it is designed precisely to tackle some of the things you have identified.

Chair: I am going to bring in Kim, and then Caroline.

Q18            Kim Johnson: Good morning, panel. I think it is a real shame that the National Union of Students is not here today; I am sure it has a good reason. It would be really useful to hear what it has to say about free speech, so it’s a shame it is not here to defend itself this morning. The UCU has said that the Bill is a draconian state intervention in public life, threatening freedom of speech, academic freedom and the institutional autonomy of universities. Nicola, how would you respond to that statement from UCU?

Nicola Dandridge: Look, none of us want that. It would be wholly regrettable if it ended up in that situation, and I do not see why it should. If the Bill is enacted, we, as the regulator, will take responsibility for overseeing a large part of it. We have to have regard to the importance of institutional autonomy; we have to be proportionate and risk-based. The picture that is being painted is just not realistic or likely. If we did start going down that route, we would be in front of the Education Committee to answer questions. So I do not recognise it and I do not think it is realistic. I think that the challenges the Bill is designed to address are serious, and the Bill is a serious way of responding to them.

Professor Humphris: I do not see it as a threat to institutional autonomy. It is a product of democracy—it is a Bill going through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It will, I assume, come into law; then, the real challenge is how we implement and observe it and protect freedom of speech.

Quintin McKellar: I simply do not recognise that series of statements.

Clare Marchant: Although the NUS is not here today, I think there is a way to get the student voice into some of this as well, as the Bill goes through, by recognising those students we speak to on a day in, day out basis—the 750,000 each and every year, and those in their second, third and fourth year at institutions. There is a way to make their voice heard as this goes through.

Q19            Kim Johnson: And do we know whether getting those student voices heard is happening already, Clare?

Clare Marchant: We survey students on a regular basis through about a two-year period. There is every opportunity to use those capabilities to ask them for their views on that. It is not currently something that we focus on. As I said, we are doing insight reports at the moment on cohorts of students; the next cohort that we are looking at is disabled students. However, we are more than happy to help.

Q20            Dr Johnson: Like the Chair and most of the Committee, I am sad that the NUS has not been able to come today. However, I have the voices of some of my constituent students, and of their grandparents and parents, to bring forward today. One of them is with regard to what we have just been talking about—self-censorship and concerns on free speech. From talking to a Newcastle politics student, there appears to be a feeling that, if one writes an essay from a particular political perspective—particularly a more right than left political perspective—that may affect the marking and grades that they get for their essay. What options would a student have if they thought that that was happening? Who would they go to if they were concerned about that? Given that it may be a feature of the university department they are in, there may be no one in the department who they can go to. How do we ensure that people’s work is not marked by their views?

Professor Humphris: Obviously, I cannot speak for the University of Newcastle, but there will be arrangements for a student who feels that. Obviously, there is the course leader, but if you look at the course leader and think that that is the seat of the challenge, there will be your personal tutor and—certainly in my institution—an arrangement for student support and guidance tutors. There will be other routes through which a student could seek to raise that issue, and we would then address it through the school and course leadership teams, because that should not be the case.

Q21            Dr Caroline Johnson: It should not, I agree. Is there any way that they can do that without identifying themselves, or in a way that is external to the university? There is an awareness—or maybe a fear—that their marks will get worse if they complain.

Professor Humphris: I will take you back to the comment I made earlier about responding to the expectations that the OfS has set out. Certainly, at the University of Brighton, we have set up #neverok. There is a whole set of routes by which a student can disclose. They can name themselves; they can do it anonymously. They can just raise an issue—we take it all seriously. In every university, there should be mechanisms through which a student can disclose and identify the extent to which they want support, help and intervention on a range of issues, be it that they think they are being marked unfairly, or that they have a challenging relationship with a member of staff. Every university should have those sorts of arrangements in place.

Quintin McKellar: Of course, we rely on our academic colleagues and their integrity to ensure that this does not happen, but of course, we also have boards of examiners, which are not comprised of individuals, and we have external input to those boards of examiners, which gives us a sort of external overview. I think there are safeguards in place. Debra has pointed out what a student might do if they felt concerned about that.

Most universities mark anonymously now, so the student’s identity can and should remain anonymous. Of course, it has to be disclosed if you get to a point where you are investigating a particular issue in a particular case.

Nicola Dandridge: Perhaps I can just add to that. We have a notification system for when students are concerned about practices within their universities. That can be anonymised, and it often is. If that sort of thing was occurring, we would encourage them to let us know, and we can look into exactly those sorts of examples on an anonymous basis.

Dr Caroline Johnson: That is helpful; thank you.