Professor Kathleen Stock freedom of speech case<\/a>, and is arguing for it to be overturned in the High Court.<\/strong><\/p>\nAfter spending three years investigating the university following Stock\u2019s resignation, the OfS announced the fine last March. It only gained the power to fine institutions in January 2025.<\/p>\n
The philosophy professor, who rejects accusations that she is transphobic, faced protests calling for her sacking on the university campus after she published a book questioning whether gender identity was more \u201csocially significant\u201d than biological sex. She resigned after saying she felt pressured to self-censor her work.<\/p>\n
The OfS said the university\u2019s policy statement on trans and non-binary equality, including a requirement to \u201cpositively represent trans people\u201d, could lead to staff and students preventing themselves from voicing opposing views.<\/p>\n
But university lawyers this week told a hearing in London that while it had \u201cnot taken any side\u201d in the gender debate, the OfS decision should be quashed as it was \u201cprocedurally unfair\u201d and the watchdog\u2019s approach was \u201cunreasonable\u201d.<\/p>\n
Chris Buttler KC, for the university, said the case concerned the \u201cinstitutional autonomy of universities to foster civility and tolerance on campus\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe consequence of the decision for the university has been severe, particularly its impact on the university\u2019s reputation as a bastion of free speech,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
At its heart, the issue concerns the university\u2019s policy statement of trans and non-binary equality, adopted in 2018. It was based on a widely used template from Advance HE, the higher education charity, which seeks to promote fair treatment of trans and non-binary staff and students.<\/p>\n
The OfS said the policy created a \u201cchilling effect\u201d on freedom of speech, potentially leading to self-censorship among students and staff across campus.<\/p>\n
However, Buttler argued that the policy was not a \u201cgoverning document\u201d that would be subjected to registration conditions, and on that basis, the regulator had no power to impose the fine.<\/p>\n
He said the watchdog was only permitted to scrutinise \u201cgoverning documents\u201d of an institution under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Buttler also said the investigation was unfair because of bias and predetermination. He pointed out that the OfS did not consider \u201cremedial action\u201d taken by the university and \u201csingled out the university for punishment\u201d.<\/p>\n
The University of Sussex was the first higher education institution to be handed a fine for free speech. The university was given a significant discount because it was the first of its kind, the OfS said. It could have been asked to pay more than \u00a33 million in penalties.<\/p>\n
Monica Carss-Frisk KC, for the OfS, said Stock\u2019s complaint said the policy \u201ccontributed to an overall atmosphere in which harassment against her and others critical of gender-identity ideology is seen as acceptable\u201d.<\/p>\n
She said: \u201cNone of the matters upon which the university relies are evidence which could support a finding of real or apparent bias\/predetermination.\u201d<\/p>\n
The university has also challenged the fine at a separate tribunal, though counsel told the court this would proceed only if the High Court challenge failed.<\/p>\n
The hearing before Mrs Justice Lieven is due to conclude on Thursday, with a written judgment expected at a later date.<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.personneltoday.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2026\/02\/shutterstock_1070816735-3-1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n