The number of universities publicly adopting a policy of institutional neutrality appears to be growing “rapidly”, according to new research, as English institutions face stronger requirements to protect free speech on campuses.�� 

A report from free speech campaign group Alumni For Free Speech (AFFS) found that 18 per cent of UK universities, out of 178 researched, have made a formal commitment to institutional neutrality, usually by releasing a public statement.��

The number of institutions doing so appears to be “growing rapidly”, the report says.

Between January 2024 and 2026, the number of Russell Group universities making this kind of commitment rose from three (12.5 per cent) to seven (29.2 per cent).��

ߣߣ��Ƶ

Institutions that have committed to neutrality include Queen Mary University of London, Imperial College London, the University of Edinburgh, King’s College London and the University of Bristol.��

It follows years of debate about whether universities should take a stance on political and social issues, with the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict bringing the issue to a head at some institutions.��

ߣߣ��Ƶ

The report says that, in recent years, higher education providers have “increasingly taken official, public stances on contentious social and political matters”, a trend that has “contributed to the politicisation of higher education” and “created an untenable expectation” that universities “must comment about or adopt a position on every major political or social debate”.��

In England, universities must now also navigate new free speech laws, which came into effect last August.��

Institutions have been encouraged by some to adopt a policy of political neutrality, including by the Office for Students’ free speech director, Arif Ahmed, who in March said political statements could have a “chilling effect” on free speech.��

The report suggests that institutional neutrality is “one of the most effective ways to limit legal and compliance risks” under campus free speech laws.��

ߣߣ��Ƶ

“If an institution fails to maintain institutional neutrality and, instead, picks a side in an area of passionate and polarised debate on a contested and controversial issue, it necessarily formally sets itself against the other position however many people lawfully take the opposite view,” the report says.��

“This gives rise to a very obvious risk of suppressing both free speech and academic freedom, either through concrete measures being taken, or through a chilling effect caused by open or implied institutional disapproval.”

However, the group determined that two of the 32 statements of neutrality it identified were “seriously flawed”.��

It notes that some universities say they will not “normally” or “usually” adopt a political position, which AFFS argues weakens the statements’ “efficacy”.��

ߣߣ��Ƶ

In a letter to university leaders accompanying the report, the group writes: “If…the number of universities choosing to adopt institutional neutrality is rapidly increasing, those which fail to adopt it soon risk being seen as laggards who are less serious about free speech protection.”

It added that those institutions are more likely to be non-compliant with free speech duties.��

ߣߣ��Ƶ

“We therefore urge your institution formally and publicly to adopt institutional neutrality as soon as possible,” the letter says.��

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com