My Website www.linkagenet.com has a very extensive page which is mainly concerned with Cambridge University but which also contains extensive supplementary material on Royal Holloway:
www.linkagenet.com/themes/cambridge-university.htm
I've now begun to add supplementary material on Universities UK. This is the most recent material on the site and will be revised and extended. It can be found in the section with the heading Universities UK: defending freedom of expression.
The issue of freedom of expression has been addressed in a statement made by the Chief Executive of Universities UK, a statement which I quote. I point out that the statement is concerned with matters to do with freedom of expression within universities. Legitimate criticism of universities and university staff by people outside universities is surely a very important aspect of freedom of expression. I provide evidence - to me, very disturbing in its implications - that a university may disregard completely the need to preserve and protect legitimate freedom of expression in this wider context. I received a demand from a solicitor at Royal Holloway, the General Counsel, to remove material on Royal Holloway and one of Royal Holloway's academics, Dr Mark Berry. I didn't comply. The material is still there, left almost completely unchanged, but with the addition of a great deal of new material, including this very new section.
I very much hope that the material will be given careful consideration. Universities UK is free to take any action it wishes, or, of course, to take no action, just as I am free to comment on developments on the page of my Website, courteously, in a fair-minded way.
From the Website of 'Universities UK,'
https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/
''Universities UK is the collective voice of 140 universities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.'
As would be expected, its interests and policies are very wide ranging, including issues to do with free expression.
From the Website
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-speech-to-be-protected-at-university
Free speech to be protected at university
New guidance for students and
universities will set out the legal rights and obligations
to help protect lawful free speech on campuses.
Included, this statement from
Alistair Jarvis, Chief Executive at Universities UK,
'Universities are absolutely committed to promoting and protecting free speech. Universities host thousands of events each year – among a student population of more than two million – and the vast majority of these pass without incident.
'Although there is little evidence of a systematic problem of free speech in universities, there is a legal duty on the higher education sector to secure free speech within the law and it is important that universities continually review their approaches.
'This new guidance provides a useful tool that will help universities balance the numerous requirements placed upon them, including student safeguarding responsibilities, and supports their significant efforts to uphold freedom of speech.'
All the references to free speech, including the statement of the Chief Executive of Universities UK, seem to be concerned with internal free speech in universities - the attempt to permit, in fact, to foster, free expression within universities. What of the freedom for people outside universities to criticize universities and members of staff at universities?
Here, I give information about my own experience. I provide evidence that the Principal of Royal Holloway failed to consider the alarming and disturbing mplications of an email sent to me by the Legal Counsel of Royal Holloway. I think it's a reasonable assumption that the Legal Counsel sent the email with the permission of the Principal or, it may well be, after being instructed to send it. So here is the evidence - which is certainly relevant to the issue of Universities and freedom of expression and which should, I think, lead to a wider view of the issue.
On 29 September 2020, I received an email from Mrs Elaina Moss, a solicitor and Legal Counsel at Royal Holloway. I don't give the content of her email here. In my reply, given next, I asked for permission to quote the email and I summarized my policy on quoting emails. I never received a reply from Mrs Moss and so I don't quote the email on this Website. What I can do is convey the demand she made: the demand was to remove references to Dr Berry and to Royal Holloway from my Website, as having the potential to cause distress. She made no comment on the tweets of Dr Berry I quote and discuss, for example, the description of Sarah Ludford as a
a description of Sarah Ludford as, allegedly, a
'mass murderer'
this, on the former Labour MP Kate Hoey
'the Nazi Hoey ... '
However did an email containing such a deeply disturbing demand, with such an unreal notion of freedom of expression, come to be approved and sent? I'm not in the least likely to find out the circumstances. The Principal of Royal Holloway, Professor Layzell, must have approved the contents of the email and the decision to send it. Did Mrs Moss give a legal opinion that it would be very unwise to send the email, that the demand to remove the material from my site was a completely unwarranted infringement of freedom of expression, but was overruled by the Principal, who insisted that it should be sent? Or did Mrs Moss give legal advice which disregarded the infringement?
Other questions which come to mind. Was Dr Berry informed of the decision to send the email? If he was informed, did he raise any objections? Or was he glad that the critical comments - and the arguments and evidence for the critical comments - would disappear from the public domain?
Extracts from the email I sent to Mrs Moss in reply:
Dear Mrs Moss,
Thank you so much for your email. The Home Page of my Website www.linkagenet.com contains, amongst so much else, this:
'Emails sent to me won't be released into the public domain, including publication on this site, unless with the sender's permission.' I would very much like to quote the content of your email in full on my Website. I would be grateful if you would give me permission to quote it. The material on Dr Berry and Royal Holloway on my Website will stay. In fact, the material on Royal Holloway Music Department will be extended.
Dear Professor Layzell,
Below, you'll find the text of an email which I've already sent to most academic staff of the Department of Music at Royal Holloway, most recently Dr Berry himself ... I realize the demands on your time, and, of course, the fact that the Coronavirus epidemic will have added to the demands. Obviously, the decision is yours, but my own view is that it would be unfair to expect action from you in this matter, even if you think that Dr Berry has a case to answer. The matter involves difficult issues to do with academic freedom and freedom of expression and the necessary restrictions on complete freedom of expression, for academics as well as non-academics ...
'Extracts from the email sent to members of
the Music Department of Royal Holloway and other recipients and
quoted in the email to Professor Layzell]:
I begin the first section by commenting on a recent remark of Dr Berry in his blog Boulezian:
' ... reception of the chalice, more bitterly poisoned than ever, bearing the name ‘Head of the Department of Music’ for the next three years. (There are baptisms of fire, and there are baptisms of March 2020.)'
and what it reveals about his view of this new role, assumed at
a difficult time when strong leadership is needed: only a weak,
clueless leader would put these thoughts into the public domain,
surely. After that, I comment on many of his tweets, beginning with
this
'Surely it is time for the entirety of the civil service to go on strike. Bring this rotten, fascist government down for good.'
and what it reveals about his attitude to democratic government and his grasp of realities, of what is possible and what is impossible. I point out that a Civil Service strike would be calamitous for everyone. For example, since the Civil Service is responsible for payment of benefits and pensions among a very large number of other responsibilities, the effects of a strike on people who receive benefits and pensions, a very large number, would be disastrous.
So many of the tweets amount to a torrent of abuse, a sustained
display of ignorance, raising disturbing questions about this
academic, I believe. I provide the evidence for my belief.'
...
Obviously, no reply is expected to this email.
Best Wishes,
Paul Hurt
Please find attached letter from Mrs Elaina Moss.
Kind regards
Jacqui
Legal and Compliance Assistant
This email, its contents and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. In certain circumstances, it may also be subject to legal privilege. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. If you have received this email in error, please notify us and immediately and permanently delete it. Any views or opinions expressed in personal emails are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Royal Holloway, University of London. It is your responsibility to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus free.
Dear Professor Layzell,
Below, you'll find the text of an email which I've already sent to most academic staff of the Department of Music at Royal Holloway, most recently Dr Berry himself ... I realize the demands on your time, and, of course, the fact that the Coronavirus epidemic will have added to the demands. Obviously, the decision is yours, but my own view is that it would be unfair to expect action from you in this matter, even if you think that Dr Berry has a case to answer. The matter involves difficult issues to do with academic freedom and freedom of expression and the necessary restrictions on complete freedom of expression, for academics as well as non-academics ..
'Extracts from the email sent to members of the Music
Department of Royal Holloway and other recipients and quoted in the
email to Professor Layzell]:
I begin the first section by commenting on a recent remark of Dr Berry in his blog Boulezian:
' ... reception of the chalice, more bitterly poisoned than ever, bearing the name ‘Head of the Department of Music’ for the next three years. (There are baptisms of fire, and there are baptisms of March 2020.)'
and what it reveals about his view of this new role, assumed at a
difficult time when strong leadership is needed: only a weak, clueless
leader would put these thoughts into the public domain, surely. After
that, I comment on many of his tweets, beginning with this
'Surely it is time for the entirety of the civil service to go on strike. Bring this rotten, fascist government down for good.'
and what it reveals about his attitude to democratic government and his grasp of realities, of what is possible and what is impossible. I point out that a Civil Service strike would be calamitous for everyone. For example, since the Civil Service is responsible for payment of benefits and pensions among a very large number of other responsibilities, the effects of a strike on people who receive benefits and pensions, a very large number, would be disastrous.
So many of the tweets amount to a torrent of abuse, a sustained display
of ignorance, raising disturbing questions about this academic, I
believe. I provide the evidence for my belief.'
...
Obviously, no reply is expected to this email.'
Members are invited to meet four times a year through 3
Members’ Meetings (February, May and December) and the
Members’ Annual Conference (September).
Universities UK is a company limited by guarantee with charitable status and is financed mainly through subscription from its member institutions.
The board is our main decision-making body and meets
five times a year. It focuses on UK-wide issues and
those issues in the constituent nations of the UK that
have UK-wide implications or interest.
New guidance for students and universities will set out the legal rights and obligations to help protect lawful free speech on campuses.
Alistair Jarvis, Chief Executive at Universities UK, said:
Universities are absolutely committed to promoting and protecting free speech. Universities host thousands of events each year – among a student population of more than two million – and the vast majority of these pass without incident.
Although there is little evidence of a systematic problem of free speech in universities, there is a legal duty on the higher education sector to secure free speech within the law and it is important that universities continually review their approaches.
This new guidance provides a useful tool that will help universities balance the numerous requirements placed upon them, including student safeguarding responsibilities, and supports their significant efforts to uphold freedom of speech.