246
A Mere Solicitor
A Mere Solicitor

R (Sussex) v OfS and FDU (2026) 1. The judgement: judiciary.uk

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/AC-2025-LON-001462-Final-Approved-Judgment.pdf

www.judiciary.uk

2. Let’s start with why the OfS started their investigation:

3. We will come back to this, but it does give their comments today some context: bsky.app

A Mere Solicitor
A Mere Solicitor04/29/26

You can tell the OfS are salty at their loss against Sussex; but you can see how salty in this comment:

4. For reference, this is what the anti trans movement had an issue with:

5. I really like this take down of the transphobic moral panic: It’s all “over-simplified ideas about trans people” all the way down!

6. Similarly, this on the idea that an anti harassment statement isn’t an unlawful restriction on freedom of speech:

7. Facing hypothetical disciplinary proceedings for breaching a transphobic harassment policy is legitimate: (Obviously, but nice to see in the U.K. right now)

8. The stuff that Stock complains was silenced was actually on the reading list. You couldn’t make this up:

9. I can’t fit it all in the ALT text neatly but the section below on the correspondence between Stock and Ahmed is notable for just how snide it is and showing how “Gender Critical” transphobia works:

10. Plus the fact that arguing for more racism is baked into these attacks… …but is also used as a tactic to argue for prohibition on protest (even though that is also a restriction on free speech).

11. Pro-transphobia witch-hunts aren’t lawful. Someone should remind the Labour Government.

12. Initial thoughts? This is a loss for GC transphobes. I was worried it would be purely technical but there’s substance here too. Eg: Protecting trans people from harassment is confirmed as a legitimate aim, the transphobia club’s incestuousness creates an institutional risk… 12 continued: …it also gives a framework to say “no” to the anti trans activists. If you’re being targeted then pointing to this and saying “you’re heading towards another OfS style embarrassment…” is going to be fun. Addendum: Join a union*. * If you can. I know, it’s sector specific, I’m a solicitor… bsky.app

Christyn Parkes
Christyn Parkes04/29/26

A strong statement from @ucu.org.uk on the University of Sussex win against the OfS. ucu.org.uk

Sussex ruling shows why Office for Students has lost sector's trust

www.ucu.org.uk

1 / 11
30. On 7 October 2021 the OfS informed the University that it had become aware of protests in relation to Professor Stock. The OfS requested an explanation of actions taken by the University to "ensure that free speech and academic freedom are not being explicitly or implicitly curtailed for Professor Stock, or others who share her views...". The OfS began reviewing the University's publicly available documents. Further details of some aspects of this investigation are set out under Ground 6C/Issue Five below.
It’s important to stress that this case – and the OfS’s investigation – is not about the substance of ongoing debates around sex and gender. Freedom of speech extends to all sides of this and other subjects; we work to protect lawful speech irrespective of its content
The Policy Statement 2018 81. This is the only version that contained the "Positive Representation Statement". "The University of Sussex recognises that there can be differences between physical sex and gender identity/expression. We will at no time discriminate against people on the grounds of their gender identity or gender expression. Where this policy refers to 'trans people', it has in mind a broad range of people whose gender identity is not expressed in ways that are typically associated with their assigned sex at birth. This includes those who have non-binary, non-gender or genderfluid identities. The curriculum shall not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people, [Stereotyping Statement] and any materials within relevant courses and modules will positively represent trans people and trans lives. [Positive Representation Statement] Transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying (name-calling/ derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures. [Disciplinary Statement] Transphobic propaganda, in the form of written materials, graffiti, music or speeches, will not be tolerated. We undertake to remove any such propaganda whenever it appears on the premises. [Propaganda Statement] Footnote 1 This policy statement wording is based on the Joint agreement on guidelines for transgender equality in employment in further education colleges (Association of Colleges et al, 2005)."
The Policy Statement 2018 81. This is the only version that contained the "Positive Representation Statement". "The University of Sussex recognises that there can be differences between physical sex and gender identity/expression. We will at no time discriminate against people on the grounds of their gender identity or gender expression. Where this policy refers to 'trans people', it has in mind a broad range of people whose gender identity is not expressed in ways that are typically associated with their assigned sex at birth. This includes those who have non-binary, non-gender or genderfluid identities. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. The curriculum shall not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people, [Stereotyping Statement] and any materials within relevant courses and modules will positively represent trans people and trans lives. [Positive Representation Statement] Transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying (name-calling/ derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures. [Disciplinary Statement] Transphobic propaganda, in the form of written materials, graffiti, music or speeches, will not be tolerated. We undertake to remove any such propaganda whenever it appears on the premises. [Propaganda Statement] Footnote 1 This policy statement wording is based on the Joint agreement on guidelines for transgender equality in employment in further education colleges (Association of Colleges et al, 2005)."
229. Second, in respect of the Disciplinary Statement, Mr Buttler submits that this largely covers unlawful speech (harassment or bullying). However, there may be a small category of cases where, as an example, harassment may not cross the line into being contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 or Harassment Act 1997, and therefore the speech may remain lawful. However, the aim of preventing harassment bullying on the basis of transphobia, even it if it does not step over the line into unlawful action, is plainly a legitimate one and would meet step three of RA24.
229. Second, in respect of the Disciplinary Statement, Mr Buttler submits that this largely covers unlawful speech (harassment or bullying). However, there may be a small category of cases where, as an example, harassment may not cross the line into being contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 or Harassment Act 1997, and therefore the speech may remain lawful. However, the aim of preventing harassment bullying on the basis of transphobia, even it if it does not step over the line into unlawful action, is plainly a legitimate one and would meet step three of RA24.
314. In respect of those five paragraphs the University in its Representations raised a number of factual inaccuracies in respect of what Professor Stock had said. The most relevant of these points was that where Professor Stock had said she had omitted certain work from her teaching because of the Policy Statement, in fact that work had been included in her reading lists for students. This has some relevance because (a) it showed that there were issues of fact which the University appropriately needed to respond to; and (b) those errors undermined the only evidence of "harm" that the Of had relied upon in th PD.
376. Dr Ahmed and Professor Stock first exchanged emails in 2020. At that time, Dr Ahmed was campaigning to change the free speech policy at the University of Cambridge, where he was a professor of philosophy, and was reaching out to academics for comment. 377. On 23 October 2020, Professor Stock responded to Dr Ahmed's email about the campaign; "Dear Arif Thanks for this, and I admire you for chasing this. Good luck with it I agree "tolerance" is much better than "respect", I agree. ...Here is Sussex's policy, if it makes you feel any better. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=dignity-and-respect-policy- (links) pdf&site=608... " 378. On 26 October 2020, Dr Ahmed responded; "Thank you very much, and for the links ... Pleased to see that Sussex has 'zero tolerance' for all forms of harassment and bullying, unless of course it is of people like you." 379. On 30 November 2020, Dr Ahmed wrote; "I'm writing to ask for your advice - as I think I mentioned, I'm canvassing for support here in Cambridge for my attempt to liberalize our free speech policy. ... do you know anyone here in Cambridge who would be good to contact? - I mean well-connected and supportive *real* feminists. " 80. On 1 December 2020, Professor Stock responded, "Sussex meanwhile is just about to appoint a Pro-Vice Chancellor for "Culture, Diversity, and Inclusion." 81. Dr Ahmed replied on 2 December 2020, "I can't imagine how Sussex stumbled along for 60 years *without* a PVC for culture, diversity and inclusion." 382. On 3 January 2021, Professor Stock wrote to Dr Ahmed saying, "I published this recently which might be of interest-https://kathleenstock.com/highlights-of-trans-policies-in-ukuniversities".
376. Dr Ahmed and Professor Stock first exchanged emails in 2020. At that time, Dr Ahmed was campaigning to change the free speech policy at the University of Cambridge, where he was a professor of philosophy, and was reaching out to academics for comment. 377. On 23 October 2020, Professor Stock responded to Dr Ahmed's email about the campaign; "Dear Arif Thanks for this, and I admire you for chasing this. Good luck with it I agree "tolerance" is much better than "respect", I agree. ...Here is Sussex's policy, if it makes you feel any better. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=dignity-and-respect-policy- (links) pdf&site=608... " 378. On 26 October 2020, Dr Ahmed responded; "Thank you very much, and for the links ... Pleased to see that Sussex has 'zero tolerance' for all forms of harassment and bullying, unless of course it is of people like you." 379. On 30 November 2020, Dr Ahmed wrote; "I'm writing to ask for your advice - as I think I mentioned, I'm canvassing for support here in Cambridge for my attempt to liberalize our free speech policy. ... do you know anyone here in Cambridge who would be good to contact? - I mean well-connected and supportive *real* feminists. " 80. On 1 December 2020, Professor Stock responded, "Sussex meanwhile is just about to appoint a Pro-Vice Chancellor for "Culture, Diversity, and Inclusion." 81. Dr Ahmed replied on 2 December 2020, "I can't imagine how Sussex stumbled along for 60 years *without* a PVC for culture, diversity and inclusion." 382. On 3 January 2021, Professor Stock wrote to Dr Ahmed saying, "I published this recently which might be of interest-https://kathleenstock.com/highlights-of-trans-policies-in-ukuniversities".
If a lecturer or student had suffered such treatment for their race, it would have been a matter of national outrage, and any employer, particularly a public body, would (you'd expect) have stamped it out ir about twenty minutes. Kathleen Stock suffered victimization for holding and legally stating the beliefs of a gender-critical feminist. Although these beliefs, like race, constitute a legally protected characteristic, her employer seems to have permitted the harassment to continue, and to escalate, for three years. First there are the activists, typically but not always a minority of students. The activists attempt to shut down the legal and legitimate intellectual activities of academics. Sometimes they do this by directly intimidating the academic. This seems to have happened in Stock's case. Other times they do it by petitioning the university authorities to do the same. That is what seems to have happened to Greer: A second form of institutional non-neutrality is through the highly selective use of official 'statements'. Many universities routinely describe themselves as anti-racist institutions, where this means: actively campaigning for political end. For instance, Sussex says: '[a)s an institution we must actively play our part in dismantling the systems and structures that lead to racial inequality, disadvantage and under-representation.' Bristol expects all its members to 'stand up' to racism 'wherever it occurs'...." [emphasis added]
443. The fair-minded, informed and not unduly suspicious observer would in my view conclude that there was a real possibility that the decision-maker here was biased in the sense of having a closed mind to the legal and factual merits of the University's position.

Share this Page