What does free speech really mean on university campuses today? Is it the right to challenge ideas or the freedom to offend? Can it be a safeguard for academic debate or is it a licence to intimidate?

Once seen as safe havens for open minds, universities are increasingly caught in the crossfire between student activism, media outrage, moral panic and government scrutiny. The passage of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 (“the Act”) added new legal weight to an already volatile mix, holding institutions directly accountable for how they handle dissenting voices, whether in lectures, protests, or online.

The Act has redrawn the legal landscape for universities. Institutions now have a statutory duty to actively promote free speech and academic freedom – not just protect them passively. The Office for Students (OfS) is empowered to investigate breaches and impose fines or sanctions. Against this backdrop, one thing is clear: universities can no longer afford to improvise.

A recent and notable example was that of the University of Sussex (as it happens, my alma mater).  The higher education institution, with a previously distinguished record of radicalism, was hit with a record OfS fine of £585,000 following the Kathleen Stock controversy. The fine sent a strong signal that failure to safeguard lawful, if controversial, speech is now more than just a reputational risk, it’s a regulatory one too.

And it’s not just Sussex. Disrupted events at Oxford, a Suella Braverman event cancelled at Cambridge, and even pressure on academics (for example at UCL) to alter teaching materials suggest that universities are being pulled in multiple, often contradictory directions by internal and external voices wanting to censure or even censor.

It is important to note that peaceful protest remains a protected right under the new legislation. Universities must allow lawful demonstrations, even if disruptive or unpopular. But they must also intervene where conduct crosses into hate speech, harassment, or physical intimidation.

This balance is increasingly difficult to strike. Campus protests, particularly around the Israel-Palestine conflict over the last 20 months, have prompted some institutions to seek court injunctions to limit or prohibit gatherings. These moves often attract backlash for perceived censorship. Courts, meanwhile, tend to favour more measured responses over blanket bans.

Complicating matters further is a sharp rise in antisemitic incidents on UK campuses. The Community Security Trust (CST) recorded 325 university-linked antisemitic incidents over the past two academic years – a 117% increase. October 2023 alone saw 85 incidents, the highest ever recorded in a single month, ranging from verbal abuse to physical assaults. For Jewish students, it is a matter of fact that campuses are becoming increasingly hostile.

In this charged environment, university communications teams must navigate a minefield. What might begin as a niche incident – a speaker being “no-platformed,” a controversial tweet, or a protest gone wrong – can rapidly snowball into national headlines and social media outrage.

Public discourse rarely distinguishes between universities, colleges, and student unions. One institution’s controversy can damage the sector’s broader credibility. Whether it’s a student protester gluing themselves to the floor of the Oxford Union, or a course text being quietly dropped after a complaint, individual flashpoints often become symbolic battlegrounds.

To navigate the current minefield of legal duties and public expectations, universities need to get ahead of the curve. That means updating policies, not just filing them away; balancing free speech with student protection without tipping into censorship; and having crisis comms plans that do more than gather dust.

It also means getting on the front-foot from a communications perspective. Proactive engagement matters – tell the good stories before someone else tells the bad ones. Train the people on the ground so they’re not caught flat-footed, and create a campus culture where disagreement isn’t feared, but expected. This moment is as much an opportunity as it is a challenge – if institutions are willing to step up.

The new legal framework is both a constraint and a catalyst. In a competitive and reputationally sensitive sector, the universities that can model transparency, maturity, and a commitment to open inquiry will stand out.

The stakes are high. The rise in antisemitism underscores that free speech doesn’t exist in a vacuum – it intersects with safety, identity, and the law. How universities respond – legally, operationally, and communicatively – will shape not just public perception, but their ability to uphold their mission as places of learning, debate, and progress.