Sussex University is appealing a £585,000 fine for adopting a transgender policy which led to Professor Kathleen Stock feeling she had to resign.
Bosses have launched a landmark judicial review claim in the High Court, saying the Office for Students (OfS) watchdog had no power to impose the penalty.
Professor Stock, a gender-critical feminist, resigned from Sussex in 2021 over feeling pressured to ‘self-censor’ her work, amid pro-trans student protests.
The OfS said the situation arose because of the university’s transgender policy, which led to the ‘chilling’ of free speech on campus.
The policy said all courses ‘must positively represent trans people’ and ‘transphobic propaganda … will not be tolerated’.
However, today, lawyers for Sussex said the OfS did not have the power to impose a fine based on this policy, because it does not constitute a ‘governing document’.
It said the watchdog is only permitted to scrutinise ‘governing documents’ of an institution under the remit of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.
Sussex was the first ever to be issued with a fine for free speech. If it wins the case, the OfS will be much more restricted in how it can impose such fines in future.
Sussex University is appealing a £585,000 fine for adopting a transgender policy which led to Professor Kathleen Stock (pictured) being hounded out of her job
Bosses have launched a landmark judicial review claim in the High Court, saying the Office for Students (OfS) watchdog had no power to impose the penalty (pictured: trans activists at Sussex in 2021)
Professor Stock, a gender-critical feminist, resigned from Sussex in 2021 over feeling pressured to ‘self-censor’ her work, amid pro-trans student protests (pictured: grafitti by activists in 2021)
The OfS said the situation arose because of the the university’s transgender policy, which led to the ‘chilling’ of free speech on campus
Posters put up in the tunnel from Falmer station to the University of Sussex’s campus said Professor Stock ‘makes trans students unsafe’ and ‘we’re not paying £9,250 a year for transphobia’
A Sussex spokesman said: ‘This is an important case. It concerns the scope of the regulator’s powers and the autonomy of universities to foster civility, respect and inclusion on campus, and it has implications for every higher education institution in England.’
Professor Stock incurred the wrath of pro-trans extremists because she believes that biological sex is binary and immutable, and that some spaces should be female-only, like prisons.
She has spoken about how her working life was made intolerable, because of the university’s biased stance on the issue and harassment from protesters as she walked to work.
Chris Buttler KC, acting for Sussex, told the High Court the affair has had a ‘severe’ effect on the university – particularly on its ‘reputation as a bastion of free speech’.
He pointed out that the policy was taken from a template produced by Advance HE, the higher education charity, and that a number of other universities had done the same thing.
He said the policy was ‘not a governing document’ and therefore could not lead to disciplinary action against any academic.
After Professor Stock was hounded out, the policy was updated in 2022 and 2023, with the latter version saying it did not justify ‘sanctioning academic staff for questioning or testing received wisdom or putting forward new ideas, including controversial or unpopular opinions within the law’, or ‘disproportionate restrictions on freedom of speech’.
Mr Buttler said the OfS did not have the power to investigate the student protesters, so instead focussed on the transgender policy, on the grounds that it was a ‘governing document’.
However, it was a ‘paper exercise’, in which no academic was interviewed aside from Professor Stock, he said.
Monica Carss-Frisk KC, acting for the OfS, said in written submissions that the university had breached one of the conditions of registration.
This condition commits vice chancellors to ensuring their governing documents safeguard academic freedom and freedom of speech.
She said the university’s grounds for appeal ‘should be dismissed’.
She added: ‘The OfS had jurisdiction to consider all relevant matters; it conducted a careful and detailed investigation, correctly interpreting the relevant regulatory conditions.’
She said the suggestion that the trans policy was ‘not a governing document’ was ‘misconceived’ and ‘pays scant regard to the wording’ of the law.
The case, before Mrs Justice Lieven, is listed for three days.
