Written evidence from the University of Cambridge (FSU0059)

The University of Cambridge is pleased to submit evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’
inquiry into free speech in universities.

This evidence consists of three sections:

1) University statement on freedom of speech.

2) Summary of policies in place to uphold the University’s duties under Prevent and to
safeguard students.
3) A discussion of safe spaces and the distinction with no-platforming.

Section 1: University of Cambridge Statement on Freedom of Speech (approved by the Council on

13 June 2016 and came into effect on 1 October 2017)

The University of Cambridge, as a world-leading research and teaching institution, is fully committed
to the principle, and to the promotion, of freedom of speech and expression. The University’s core
values are ‘freedom of thought and expression’ and ‘freedom from discrimination’. The University
fosters an environment in which all of its staff and students can participate fully in University life,
and feel able to question and test received wisdom, and to express new ideas and controversial or
unpopular opinions, without fear of disrespect or discrimination. The University will ensure that
academic staff have such freedom within the law and within the University’s own provisions without
placing themselves at risk of losing their job or any University privileges they have. The University
expects all staff and students to receive and respond to intellectual and ideological challenges in a
constructive and peaceable way. The University instils the capacity for critical engagement in its
students, allowing them to engage with a wide range of viewpoints and to listen, dissect, analyse,
reason, adjudicate and respond to those viewpoints.

These commitments are reinforced by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and
by domestic legislation. Universities in England and Wales have a statutory duty under section 43 of
the Education (No.2) Act 19861 to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that lawful
freedom of speech and expression is secured for all staff and students and for visiting speakers. As
part of this statutory duty the University is also required to issue and keep up to date a code of
practice to be followed by all members, students and employees of the University for the
organisation of meetings and other events whether indoors or outdoors on University premises,
including on Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU) and Graduate Union (GU) premises. The
University accordingly has implemented the Code of Practice on Meetings and Public Gatherings on
University Premises (‘the Code’). The Code also sets out the conduct required of all individuals
involved in such meetings and events.

In addition, section 26 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (‘the Act’) 2 places a duty on
certain bodies, including Higher Education Institutions, in the exercise of their functions to have ‘due
regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism’. This necessitates the
establishment of protocols and procedures by which to assess the risks associated with events that

1 And the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.

2 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/6/contents/enacted
are University affiliated, funded or branded. The Act also requires those bodies to have particular
regard to statutory duties on the University with regard to academic freedom and freedom of
expression.

An active speaker programme is fundamental to the academic and other activities of the University
and staff and students are encouraged to invite a wide range of speakers and to engage critically but
courteously with them. Debate, discussion and critical enquiry are, in themselves, powerful tools in
preventing people from being drawn into terrorism. The University has drawn up this Statement
with these principles in mind.

This Statement and the Code provide the only mechanism by which the University can cancel or
impose conditions on University meetings or events where this action is deemed necessary as a
result of the event’s subject matter and/or speaker(s). This is to ensure that the use of University
premises is not inappropriately denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground
connected with their beliefs or views or the policy or objectives of a body (with the exception of
proscribed organisations) of which they are a member.

External speakers who are known to be members of proscribed organizations, or who are likely to
encourage support for proscribed organizations under UK law,3 should not be invited to speak at
University events.

The University will not unreasonably refuse to allow events to be held on its premises. The lawful
expression of controversial or unpopular views will not in itself constitute reasonable grounds for
withholding permission for an event.

Reasonable grounds for refusal would include, but are not limited to, the fact that the event is likely
to:

 Include the expression of views that risk drawing people into terrorism or are the views of
proscribed groups;
 Incite others to commit a violent or illegal act;
 Pose a genuine risk to the welfare, health or safety of members of the University or the
general public, or give rise to a breach of the peace.

Section 2: University-produced guidance on Prevent

The University has published online guidance explaining how it is responding to the Prevent duty and
how it seeks to promote freedom of speech within the law at meetings and gatherings on University
premises.

Prevent explainer – how the University is responding4

The University views its responsibilities under the Prevent duty in the way that it would view its
responsibilities towards any disturbing behaviour. In other words, it takes reasonable and
proportionate steps to be aware of the risks, is prepared to take appropriate action, and to know

3https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2
4A full version of this document can be found at http://www.cam.ac.uk/system/files/prevent_-_explainer_-
_how_the_university_is_responding.pdf
when, and how, to seek the involvement of external partners in the event that their input may be
required.

The following institutional activities have been completed:

 The University has formed a Prevent Committee to oversee its response to the Prevent
duty

 The University Council discussed Prevent and the University’s response to the duty at five
separate meetings in 2016. The Council approves the membership and terms of reference of
the Prevent Committee and the submission of the University’s Prevent action plan and risk
register to HEFCE

 A briefing note was produced to provide guidance to relevant members of the University
about the specific responsibilities of those in leadership positions

 There was a formal Discussion5 on Prevent, raised as a topic of concern in May 2016, which
allowed members of the University to consider the implications of the duty and the
collegiate University’s response

 The University’s approach to Prevent was discussed at a meeting in April 2016 attended by
the Officers of the Student Unions and the University’s Prevent Coordinator, who also
attended a meeting of a student-led Prevent taskforce which has been established by the
Officers of the Student Unions. The Presidents of CUSU and the GU are members ex officio of
the Prevent Committee.

The University’s detailed response to Prevent is defined by the requirements issued by the Secretary
of State’s guidance and the University’s action plan. It is important to note that specified authorities,
including HEIs, have considerable freedom in terms of how they implement their responsibilities
under Prevent. The University seeks to take a proportionate and risk-based approach to the Prevent
duty, using, where possible and appropriate, existing policies and procedures.

With the above principles in mind, the Prevent Committee has acknowledged that:

 The collegiate University already had a clear understanding of its Prevent-related

responsibilities prior to 2015

 The University and the Colleges can draw on a wide range of policies and procedures to
mitigate the risks posed by extremism and radicalisation

 In viewing Prevent as a matter primarily of safeguarding vulnerable individuals, the

University and the Colleges have excellent welfare and support services, as well as a variety
of active faith networks and prayer facilities

5Discussions are provide a forum in which members of the University may comment on Reports submitted to
the University by, for example, the Council or the General Board, or on topics of concern raised formally by
members of the Regent House.
  The University considered web filtering as required under the Prevent guidance for HEIs
and determined that web and content filtering is unmanageable; would hinder the
consumption of legitimate content; and was likely to produce an unproductive,
disproportionate and inappropriate administrative effort.

Section 3: Safe spaces

Within the student community at Cambridge there are various discussion and support groups,
including for those who self-define into a particular category. These groups provide opportunities for
those with similar experiences to meet for productive discussion; they are sometimes referred to as
“safe spaces”.

In Cambridge, ‘safe spaces’ include FLY (the BME women and non-binary peoples’ network),
survivors’ groups for men and women, certain meetings of the women’s campaign, BME campaign
and LGBT+ campaign and the Disabled Students’ Campaign. The sabbatical officers of CUSU have
highlighted to us their view that the existence of these groups and campaigns plays an important
role in aiding the retention and supporting the progression of under-represented groups, for
example by combatting potential isolation and loneliness. We further hope that these opportunities
help students to develop the confidence to express themselves outside of the safe spaces, and
continue to emphasise the importance of this as a vital part of participation in a university
education.

The University supports unequivocally the right of students to meet in safe spaces. We believe that
the concepts of safe spaces and of no-platforming are distinct. However, if no-platforming (such as
preventing others from attending or expressing their views within the law) occurs within a safe
space environment, this could be contrary to the University’s statement on freedom of speech and
may even be illegal.

We recognise that the Office for Students will be able to fine the University if illegal no-platforming
policies are implemented within the institution. We have also emphasised to the students’ unions
that the Charity Commission could investigate them if the Attorney-General’s guidelines on student
unions are infringed.

18 December 2017