Please read this communication alongside a communication about Freedom of Speech by Sam McGinty, Loughborough University’s General Counsel (and Director of Legal Services). 

Self-care warning: Throughout this communication there is reference to the legislative and regulatory changes that have happened because of the Kathleen Stock/ University of Sussex case, The Supreme Court Ruling and the introduction of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, (August 1^st, 2025).  

Developing institutional resilience 

The Office for Students (OfS) began an investigation into the case of a Professor Kathleen Stock of the University of Sussex who had resigned her post in 2021 after protests which escalated to her receiving harassment, calls for her to be sacked and death threats due to expressing her gender critical views. OfS found that the University of Sussex had failed to meet its legal duty, according to the Equality Act 2010, to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment of its employees and that the university had breached its E1 condition of registration to uphold academic freedom and freedom of speech. 

The resultant fine issued to Sussex of over half a million pounds (currently under appeal) is unprecedented, sent shockwaves through the Higher Education Sector and has had a profound effect on how we now understand  what constitutes protected beliefs, thus deepening the tension between two equally valid protected characteristics; those who hold protected beliefs and those whose identify as trans or non-binary.  

This development coincides with the Supreme Court Ruling (April 2025) which clarified the position in law (Equality Act 2010), as ‘sex’ referring exclusively to biological sex and not a person’s legal gender. The ruling was welcomed by some as it is perceived to be restoring sex-based rights while simultaneously causing deep anxiety for others as it is experienced as an immutable step towards an erosion of human rights and civil liberties. 

The introduction of The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023) is anticipated to sometimes deepen tension even further as it broadens the range of what is acceptable to say or express, if experienced as at odds with protecting marginalised groups from potentially discriminatory opinions and conduct. While at other times, the act will provide protection for marginalised groups to share their lived experiences, the impact of discrimination, protest against injustice and publicly demand societal change.     

How can the University, which is still at a stage of embedding an EDI governance culture and instilling good EDI practice, show resilience amid these impactful legislative and socio- political changes? Often the term ‘the university’ is used as a shorthand for university leadership. In EDI terms this tends to mean those with the most power to either promote or inhibit changes that progress equity. Being more specific, ‘the University’ refers to the people responsible for administering those powers. ‘The University’ also has responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and statutory obligations (please see Sam McGinty’s communication which breaks down university responsibilities under Freedom of Speech). A prime responsibility is to enable an environment where a plurality of diverse perspectives can be expressed and heard in an environment that promotes mutual respect. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 has reinforced this role.  

EDI at Loughborough developed largely from the ground up, often through the discretionary effort of staff and students in self-governing networks and associations who worked with EDI champions in senior leadership. This change came through a combination of diplomacy, advocacy, allyship and community activism. An environment was created in which members of the Loughborough University community have felt increasingly empowered to voice challenges to the status quo and speak their ‘truth to power’. To Loughborough’s great credit, increasingly those voices have been heard and validated.  Characterising this period, it was not always clear what institutional role individuals had in EDI progression. There was activism from people whose substantive posts were not directly related to EDI, from all grades and job families. Strongly held personal passions for increased equity and inclusion blurred with professional roles in a way that was sometimes unclear but often powerful and impactful.  

We recognised in the EDI Core Plan (June 2024) that this situation had to change if EDI progression was to be sustainable and said,  

Effective leadership and governance are essential if we are to achieve our EDI aspirations. Without these elements we run the risk of chaotic and transitory change, a lack of cohesion in our activities and disengagement of stakeholders. 

An unrecognised consequence of the blurred lines between community activism, advocacy, allyship and role of ‘the University’ is now emerging as there are increasing expectations that ‘the University’ can declare partisan support for particular positions when there are legally permissible contrary views. Recent changes to the interpretation of the law make it increasingly hard to fulfil this expectation. Added to which, having an established EDI governance structure means that we now have sections of the community whose formal role it is to represent ‘the University’ by ensuring compliance with its public sector (and other legal) duties to mitigate against risk of non-compliance and facilitate an environment that can sustain a plurality of views and opinions in a relatively safe way. There is a clearer distinction between those who use their voices to challenge, question and hold the university (and external parties) to account in advocacy of protected characteristics and those whose primary role is to protect, enable and facilitate those voices with impartiality. It will always be the case that some of us, depending on the context, have a role that does both. These changes and redefinitions of role have not been articulated explicitly and can therefore be experienced as confusing and, for some, demoralising if thought to be a dilution of anti- discriminatory practice.  

Maintaining our institutional resilience needs a steadfast commitment to anti-discrimination alongside an acknowledgement that changes to the legal and political landscape sometimes present very contradictory duties. For example, it is the University’s role to facilitate voices that some may find offensive while simultaneously preventing a ‘chilling’ impact that prevents or deters the expression of other voices. Our challenge is to remain anti-discriminatory even though   the interpretation of what is acceptable free speech   has been re interpreted by the (Higher Education) Freedom of Speech Act 2023.  

‘Impartial’ versus ‘neutral’ 

In legal terms the law requires ‘the University’ to take a ‘neutral’ position to secure freedom of speech. I struggle with this language when put in the context of a developing EDI community like Loughborough’s because ‘neutral’ implies that ‘the University’ has no vested interest in the impact of carrying out its duties.  

On a human level I believe it is more accurate to say that in practice ‘the University’ takes an ‘impartial’ position that aims to consider all lawful perspectives rather than none. There are benefits to this impartiality. This position enables empowering spaces to be created for perspective taking, mediation, facilitation and respectful challenge thus creating the conditions for a deeper understanding of other people’s lived experiences. This is at the core of a thriving academic environment and one that aspires to inclusion at all levels of its operation. It also aligns with the expectations of Parliament and the Office for Students in implementing the Act. 

On an institutional level, a position of neutrality does not preclude pressure for change from the wider community. Issues such as, decolonisation of curricula, introducing sexual harassment reporting systems, divestment of fossil fuels, improved disability and mental health support systems are all examples of causes which may have come to bear because of the pressure from students and staff on ‘the University ‘Effectively  influencing change through diplomacy, evidence gathering, demonstrating, lobbying, advocacy and activism remain crucial to keep ‘the University’ accountable. To achieve its aim to be an anti – discriminatory institution, ‘the University’ must be receptive to consideration of these challenges, however it is not the role of ‘the University’ to be the activists. 

To remain resilient, we need to stay in line with the commitments we made in the EDI core plan, despite the challenging legal and political landscape.  Those commitments were to: 

Create a culture in which respectful, constructive challenge becomes accepted as an essential and legitimate tool for progress, including challenge that comes in alternative forms or are outside of the cultural norms of the institution. Which supports an environment in  which a plurality of views can be respectfully challenged and critiqued in a respectful way, adhering to the requirements of The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech Act) 2023 to promote freedom of speech and academic freedom and meet the requirements of The Equality Act 2010 to give due regard to the elimination of discrimination, foster positive relationships and advance equality of opportunity. 

These EDI commitments have not changed and ‘the University’ is clear that promoting   freedom of speech is not the same as allowing hate speech or acts of hate. There remains an expectation that members of our Loughborough and Loughborough University London communities will continue to show one another respect.  

Humility 

Loughborough University does not exist as a single entity; it is made up of people who are part of a community. In my experience many of the individuals who make up ‘the University’ do care about the experience of fellow students and staff. The challenge now is expressing that care in such a way that it is felt by all sections of the community without running the risk of alienating or ‘chilling’ others. This is new territory and Loughborough, like other UK universities, are learning how to do this in a changing legal and regulatory environment. Important ways in which we can better demonstrate that care is through our active engagement with members of the LU community and through our communications. 

In the EDI core plan, we committed to:  

Create an environment in which the University community is appropriately consulted or informed, as relevant, in decision-making processes resulting in greater transparency and inclusivity, trust and belonging. 

I humbly acknowledge that we didn’t do justice to this commitment when issuing communications in response to the Supreme Court Ruling. In our concern to answer the call to get information out regarding the operational response, with limited guidance from Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and under increased external pressure from regulatory bodies to be ‘neutral’, we missed the need to centrally address the human impact of these changes and crucially we missed opportunities to consult with those most impacted.   

Although our communications stated that we are still committed to EDI and that people’s rights remained protected, the tone was factual, and this was experienced as uncaring. I am sorry for the resultant distress this has caused. Had we consulted more effectively with representatives across the university community the content of the messages wouldn’t have been any different, out of necessity, but the tone would have been more inclusive, and this may have mitigated against some of the angst that followed.  I recognise that the impact has been made worse by the current socio-political environment in which we see EDI activity being discredited and cancelled.  

I appreciate that, without making it explicit, it would be unlikely that everyone would have realised the sudden need for ‘the University’ to have a rapid change in approach when communicating and even less likely that there would be universal trust that those changes did not mean an erosion of commitment to EDI.  

Universities have had to very quickly respond to this changed environment, but we should always try and take everyone with us. We cannot progress in EDI work without resilience, humility, and hope. We are going to use those qualities to learn and improve our responses to what has become a very changeable socio-political environment, beginning here by providing transparent explanations and leaving as little to assumption or speculation as possible.    

Hope 

See a summary of our proposed Next Steps, based on our original commitments and recent learning about how to improve our university response. The intention being to offer hope and reassurance to those who have lost trust in Loughborough University’s EDI commitments and to offer continued assurance to those who haven’t. 

We have a plan, which we will continue to develop in consultation with representatives across staff and student networks and associations We will continue to update you on progress. 

Veronica Moore 
Executive Director, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion