Free speech tsar’s position ‘untenable’, says Sussex v-c

Arif Ahmed’s role as England’s free speech champion is in doubt following a judge’s findings that he led the investigation into the University of Sussex despite acknowledging a clear conflict of interest over his connection with Kathleen Stock, the institution’s vice-chancellor has said.

“It is hard to see how the director for free speech role can continue with him in it,” Sasha Roseneil told Times Higher Education following her university’s resounding victory against the Office for Students (OfS) on 29 April, which saw the watchdog’s record £585,000 fine overturned.

Drawing attention to the judge’s ruling that the OfS’s decision to fine Sussex was “vitiated by bias because the OfS approached the decision with a closed mind and therefore unlawfully predetermined the decision”, Roseneil said the verdict endorsed the university’s view that Ahmed should never had led the investigation.

That is because Ahmed, a University of Cambridge philosopher, had corresponded extensively with Kathleen Stock, whose departure from Sussex in October 2021 following protests on campus triggered the investigation. He had also expressed “unequivocal support” for Stock prior to his appointment to the OfS in October 2023.

In her judgment, Mrs Justice Lieven noted “the OfS had, when Dr Ahmed was first appointed, taken a decision that he should not be involved in the university investigation because he could have a conflict of interest, and he had agreed with this. It was in those circumstances somewhat surprising that he was later appointed to effectively head the investigation team.”

Both Ahmed and Susan Lapworth, then the chief executive of the OfS, were in the room when the final decision was made by a panel appointed to rule on the evidence and “had a very high degree of influence over the decision”, the ruling found.

The judge found there was “no vitiating apparent bias” in respect of Ahmed’s role and that “the die had been cast” before he became involved in the case, in October 2024. This was because, against the OfS as a whole, the evidence of “predetermination [was] more compelling”. In particular, “Lapworth’s mindset from the outset appears to have been that she wished to use the university as a tool to incentivise the rest of the sector”.

“Her involvement in the investigation was both intense and overarching, and the entire process was shaped by her,” ruled the judge.

Lapworth departed the OfS in April after four years at the helm. Her replacements, civil servants Ruth Hannant and Polly Payne, are set to assume the post as joint chief executives in June. 

Commenting on the case, Roseneil said Ahmed had “arrived part-way through the investigation and the die was cast already – the result [of the investigation] was determined from the very beginning”.

“He was part of a much bigger decision-making process but there quite a lot of material on Arif Ahmed in the judgment,” she said.

THE has approached Ahmed for comment.

On the verdict, Roseneil said the OfS had “ignored every bit of evidence it should have considered” and “took no notice of our free speech code or protections”.

And, following the recent announcement that the OfS will open a free speech complaints route for staff who have faced alleged breaches of their academic freedom, Roseneil said she had “real concerns about expanding its powers”.

“The ruling shows it is a failed regulator and further underlines it is not fit for purpose. The idea that it will change its colours and start carefully conducting investigations is naive.

“It does not understand freedom of speech or the scope of its powers so giving it more powers at this point is a bad idea.”

However, free speech champions argued the complaints scheme, which will apply to English universities, is needed more than ever as the landmark court ruling cut off what they saw as a crucial route for holding universities accountable for academic freedom infringements.

Describing the High Court decision as “deeply disappointing”, Abhishek Saha, founder member of the London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom, said it was vital that the introduction of the complaints scheme, initially expected to start in August 2025, was not delayed again. The OfS-run scheme is now expected to launch this autumn. 

A key part of the Sussex case focused on the university’s Trans and Non-Binary Inclusion Policy, which required lecturers to “positively represent trans people”. The judge ruled this was not a ‘governing document’ and therefore fell outside the remit of the 2017 Higher Education and Research Act that the OfS felt it could enforce.

“By rejecting the OfS’s sensible, functional definition of ‘governing documents’, this ruling disables one of the few tools the regulator had to hold universities accountable,” said Saha, professor of mathematics at Queen Mary University of London.

“That is why the enforcement mechanisms in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act are needed more than ever,” he continued on the legislation passed in 2023, which took effect last year.

“They are broader where it matters, more agile in operation, and offer a lower-stakes route to accountability than the blunt instrument of judicial review. The complaints scheme, in particular, is designed to do what this litigation could not: give individuals a faster route to remedy and meaningful redress.”

The OfS’ interim chief executive, Josh Fleming, said the new complaints system will go ahead, but will “use completely different tools” to the Sussex investigation. Despite the result, it was “completely right for the regulator to pay attention to what was happening at the university,” he said, in light of Stock's departure. 

Smita Jamdar, partner and head of education at Shakespeare Martineau, a law firm that works with universities, said the judge’s criticisms of how the OfS handled the case and interpreted the law raised doubts on whether it the regulator will be able to take on a much more substantial complaints handling role.

“The court has identified serious issues with the OfS's interpretation of the law, the basis on which it makes its judgements under the regulatory framework, and its capacity to reach decisions without predetermination and with due independence,” said Jamdar.

“All these seem to be fundamental prerequisites for the complaint scheme that it is being asked to administer and any failure to clearly and demonstrably address these concerns would undoubtedly undermine confidence in any scheme it does set up," she continued, adding: "The sector deserves better.”