Extremism clampdown could have 'chilling effect' on free speech at universities

It follows a speech on 1 March by prime minister Rishi Sunak highlighting what he described as a “shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality”.

Sunak expressed concerns over the escalation of protests into intimidation, threats, and planned acts of violence. He said that “democracy itself” had become a target, with council meetings and local events being “stormed”, and MPs no longer feeling “safe” in their homes.

Higher education expert at Pinsent Masons, Julian Sladdin, said: “There is a clear indication from the prime minister’s recent speech regarding his intended steps to make extremist activities illegal in the UK that there will be a particular focus on higher education.”

The prime minister announced plans to tackle extremism, saying that those in the UK on visas who “choose to spew hate … or intimidate people” will have their right to stay in the country revoked and that those who aim to “undermine [UK] values” be prevented from entering the country. The government will also “redouble support” for the ‘Prevent’ programme – a government-led, multi-agency programme aimed at early intervention to stop individuals from becoming involved in terrorism or extremism – as well require universities to curtail extremist activity on campuses.

This follows a delayed report in February this year from William Shawcross, appointed by the government to independently review the effectiveness of the Prevent programme, which suggested that in his view Prevent referrals from universities were ‘strikingly low’ as a result of regulatory and provider failures to effectively implement their duties.     

The prime minister’s comments and those of William Shawcross point to a clear perception that unchecked extremist activity is taking place on university campuses “which the government believes it should address by widening the present definition of extremism under the Prevent regime and strengthening the Prevent programme,” Sladdin added.

However, he warned that widening the definition could have potential unintended consequences for groups whose views and beliefs which are often considered to be ‘extreme’, such as gender-critical views or those opposed to gay marriage, but which are not defined as illegal or unlawful in themselves and have also been afforded protections in recent employment tribunal cases.

Sladdin said: “Any widely drafted definition of extremism risks a chilling effect on free speech on campus and potentially places restrictions  on  the newly enhanced duties to ensure free speech, which will come into force on 1 August, and sits uncomfortably with the fact that the Prevent programme has always included an express commitment to free speech and academic freedoms as one of the most important arenas for challenging extremist views and ideologies. Any failure to take account of the 'particular regard' to ensure free speech on campus risks any new guidance being challenged as unlawful. This previously happened in 2018 when Dr Salman Butt sought a successful judicial review of the Prevent guidance following several universities deciding not to proceed with events on the back of that document.”

According to a recent report by The Times, the government has denied that any new definition would inadvertently ban the likes of traditional Christian groups or gender-critical groups. Instead, the prime minister has indicated that this would be part of steps to “redouble” commitment to the Prevent agenda, under which universities have a legal obligation to have due regard to under the 2015 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act to stop extremist activity on campus.

However, Sladdin said that higher education institutions would need greater clarity over how any additional legal duties would operate alongside the newly enhanced duties to ensure free speech on campus. “It is important that the government act with some sensitivity in developing and introducing any revised definitions of extremism or strengthened Prevent guidance for higher education to avoid a serious risk of undermining the steps which have recently been taken to enhance right of free speech within higher education,” he said.