Academic freedom was once considered an unshakable pillar of higher education in the United Kingdom. But in recent years, that foundation has begun to crack—particularly when research touches on sensitive topics like gender identity and sex-based rights.
A new report from Professor Alice Sullivan at University College London has cast fresh light on a troubling trend: the failure of UK universities to protect gender-critical scholars from harassment, ostracism, and career-damaging backlash. These scholars—who argue that biological sex still holds relevance in law, medicine, and public policy—are increasingly facing institutional pressure simply for expressing scientifically grounded views that diverge from dominant narratives around gender identity.
According to Sullivan, the issue isn’t disagreement—disagreement is healthy and expected in academia. The problem is how disagreement has morphed into silencing. “This is not academic debate—it’s intellectual suppression,” she warned. “Researchers are facing coordinated campaigns of intimidation just for stating that sex matters, biologically and socially.”
The report calls on universities to enforce real consequences for students or staff who engage in harassing behavior aimed at stifling freedom of expression. It also highlights the incoming Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which will take effect in England this August and is expected to legally enshrine researchers' rights to express controversial views without fear of institutional retaliation. Yet, as Sullivan points out, this protection doesn’t currently extend to Wales or Scotland, where scholars remain vulnerable.
Among those caught in this storm is Dr. James Holloway, a social psychologist at the University of Cambridge. During a 2023 academic seminar, Holloway cautiously suggested that “modern gender theory must tread carefully when conflating identity with legal recognition.” Within hours, his remarks—stripped of context—were circulating online. His inbox filled with hate mail, and a group of students launched a petition calling for an investigation into whether he had violated the university’s inclusion policy.
“I couldn’t sleep for days,” Holloway later told The Times. “I wasn’t denying anyone’s humanity—I was raising a question that deserves careful thought. But I was instantly cast as a bigot.”
For many, such episodes have a chilling effect. Faculty members think twice before choosing research topics. Graduate students censor themselves in class discussions. Conferences are canceled, funding is withheld, and once-promising careers quietly disappear.
And yet, this fear-driven silence stands in stark contrast to what a university should be. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Real academic environments don’t run from difficult questions—they face them head-on.
In some cases, the pushback against intellectual suppression comes from scholars like Canadian sociologist Madeline Smith. In 2024, she organized a campus forum titled “Gender Identity Laws and the Rights of Women.” Predictably, several student groups tried to shut it down, claiming it created an “unsafe environment.” But Smith stood firm. “You can oppose my arguments, but you don’t get to oppose my right to present them,” she said. “If we’re afraid to even discuss the complexities of gender and law, then we’re already living in a soft dystopia.”
Professor Sullivan’s report warns that universities cannot afford to remain passive. Without active measures to protect a diversity of viewpoints—including those that are unpopular—campuses risk devolving into ideological echo chambers. Legal protections like the upcoming Freedom of Speech Act are only part of the solution; the real change must be cultural.
Universities should return to their original purpose: not to shield students and staff from discomfort, but to challenge them—intellectually, ethically, and personally. As Smith puts it, “Academic freedom doesn’t mean everyone agrees. It means we can disagree without fear.”
True inclusivity doesn't require agreement on every issue. It requires a shared commitment to dialogue, even when it’s difficult. Especially when it’s difficult.
So, can a university still be a safe space—for ideas?
Only if it’s brave enough to be.
If you'd like, I can also help create a shorter version of this article suitable for LinkedIn or professional education newsletters.