Bias, predetermination and a closed mind – a judgement on the Office for Students

On Wednesday, the University of Sussex resoundingly won its case against the Office for Students (OfS) in the High Court, overturning a £585,000 fine.

After a three-and-a-half-year-long Kafkaesque investigation, in March 2025, the OfS concluded that a short policy statement that sought to protect the rights of trans and non-binary people breached the principles of freedom of speech and academic freedom, and imposed on the University of Sussex the highest fine ever levied by the regulator.

Today, the High Court has found that decision to be unlawful, ruling that the OfS was biased, had misunderstood the concepts of freedom of speech and academic freedom, and had exceeded its regulatory powers. The OfS’s decision against Sussex is emphatically quashed, and its already troubled reputation has suffered further severe harm.

Taking legal action against our primary regulator was not a decision Sussex took lightly, but it was clear to me from soon after I took up the role of Vice-Chancellor, almost a year into the investigation, that the OfS was not approaching the university in the fair-minded and measured way that should be expected of a regulatory body.

My early experience was of my only scheduled meeting with the OfS being unilaterally cancelled because I questioned the offer of a ‘settlement’ that would have meant accepting unspecified allegations of breaches of academic freedom and freedom of speech, paying a large fine, and thereafter being unable to speak publicly about it. That was just one moment in a torturous investigation during which no one working or studying at the university was ever interviewed, and that ultimately the High Court deemed to have been infected by bias and predetermination.

The High Court came to the damning conclusion that the OfS had "approached the decision with a closed mind and had therefore unlawfully predetermined the decision". The whole investigation and decision-making process, involving both OfS officials and members of its board, was biased because it failed to consider the evidence that the university had in place comprehensive protections of freedom of speech and academic freedom. From the outset, the OfS was determined to make Sussex into an object lesson for the sector, singling it out when other universities had the same policy statement, and refusing to consider our many attempts to remedy the alleged breaches.

Moreover, the OfS fundamentally misunderstood the law relating to freedom of speech. It had incorrectly assumed that universities cannot have any policies that limit lawful speech – even if they seek to protect the learning and working environment, and to make possible full participation and inclusion. This absolutist interpretation of freedom of speech was found to be wrong in law: the High Court has confirmed that universities are entitled to restrict speech where it is proportionate to do so. The judgement affirms that universities can protect students and staff from bullying, abuse, and harassment, whilst also upholding and promoting free speech. This is a hugely important judgment, particularly for members of minority groups studying and working in our universities.

The OfS also "misdirected itself" on the question of academic freedom, fundamentally misunderstanding the applicable statutory standard. It also did not read the university’s relevant documents as a whole, "fairly and in accordance with a proper lawful interpretation", and it assumed that the university might act unlawfully (regardless of whether it did), rather than presuming that it acts in accordance with the law, as is expected of public bodies.

The court further concluded that the OfS had misunderstood the scope of its own powers, wrongly believing it could micromanage universities’ policies and statements – in this case, a policy statement that sought to protect trans and non-binary people from bullying, abuse, and harassment. The judgment clarifies that the OfS is limited to reviewing a university’s governing documents, not every policy or statement it might produce. This represents an important affirmation of the institutional autonomy of English universities – a principle that the OfS was set up to defend.

It is important to emphasise one point which has been the basis of extensive misrepresentation. Neither the OfS’s decision nor the judicial review was about Dr Kathleen Stock’s employment at Sussex, as the OfS had no power in that regard. My predecessor and I have consistently regretted her decision to resign, and the university robustly supported both her academic freedom and her freedom of speech.

The careful and detailed judgement is worth reading in its entirety. It is an excoriating indictment of the OfS’s leadership and governance and raises serious concerns about the regulator’s credibility and fitness for purpose. The Court’s findings are consistent with those of the 2023 inquiry by the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee, which reported that the OfS is not trusted by universities, arguably does not act in the student interest, and appears at times to invoke ‘the student interest’ to pursue political aims.

With the government planning to grant ever more powers to the OfS, and as the OfS itself continually expands its regulatory framework, I am seeking an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Education to discuss the implications of this High Court ruling. We need a regulator that operates fairly and openly, that understands freedom of speech and academic freedom and the importance of institutional autonomy, and that works with the sector – not against it – in the interests of students, and to support the long-term health of one of the nation’s greatest assets.

Meanwhile, I am delighted that Sussex’s foundational commitments to academic freedom and freedom of speech have been recognised by the High Court, and that the OfS’s egregious decision against the university has been overturned. Sussex has always been a place in which the most contentious ideas of the day are developed and discussed, and where staff and students energetically exercise their academic freedom and freedom of speech.

We will continue to promote and protect these rights as fundamental to our mission of education and research, whilst also seeking actively to create an inclusive, respectful, and supportive campus culture for students and staff of all backgrounds, beliefs, and identities.

Professor Sasha Roseneil is Vice Chancellor of the University of Sussex

Related

The First Restore Britain University Societies Are Being Created

By Matilda Martin

31 May