OfS ‘missed opportunity’ to aid universities on Gaza encampments

England’s higher education regulator “missed an opportunity” to support universities contending with pro-Gaza encampments on their campuses last year, according to sector leaders.

A major report published by the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) on 30 January is the first to examine the impact of and response to the tent protests at 36 campuses over four months in summer 2024, which called on institutions to break off investments and partnerships allegedly enabling Israeli military action in Palestine.

Based on interviews with protesters, institutional leaders including vice-chancellors, students’ union officers and Jewish student leaders, the report by Hepi policy manager Josh Freeman finds that universities had to “invest significant resource to address the encampments and the new challenges they posed”, but that the protests “often did not, by themselves, significantly disrupt the normal functioning of institutions”.

It finds that universities responded to the encampments in different ways, with some engaging with protesters immediately and some never setting up substantive talks, but says that most ultimately tolerated the tents “until they pose[d] a risk to the normal functioning of the university” – or a health and safety risk – and then moved to evict them.

It acknowledges that a particular concern was the impact of the encampments on Jewish students, with some of those interviewed for the report describing cases of alleged antisemitism suspected to have been perpetrated by members of encampments, feeling “fearful and intimidated”, and suggesting that, even if the protests were not antisemitic, they helped to foster an environment that “emboldened” such behaviour and “normalised” it.

Noting that those involved in the encampments also reported being subjected to harassment from students, staff and members of the public who were opposed to the protests, including Islamophobic abuse, the report finds that universities felt that they lacked clear guidance from ministers and, in England, the Office for Students, about how to strike an appropriate balance between enabling freedom of speech and preventing hate crimes.

While the Westminster government called for universities to take action against antisemitism, the report quotes a representative of the Jewish community saying that Conservative ministers found themselves in a difficult position because of their support for the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, “which appeared to protect much of the speech Jewish groups were most concerned about”.

The new Labour government subsequently paused the legislation and is now seeking to revise or remove several of its key elements.

The Hepi report says that the “consensus” among universities was that the OfS had “missed an opportunity to support institutions, particularly with challenges around difficult language, and perhaps struck the wrong tone with its communications to institutions”.

One interviewee said that guidance around use of terms such as “from the river to the sea” would have been useful, noting that, “At one point the government was calling on us to clamp down on it, but we thought that would be illegal.”

One interviewee said: “The OfS is not the slightest bit helpful. Their understanding of the challenges we’re facing in universities is utterly banal.”

Speaking to Times Higher Education, report author Freeman said that universities had been dealing with “very difficult, contested language”.

“[Universities] felt they needed some guidance on the legal status of that language, and I think that that was muddied somewhat by the confusion over the freedom of speech bill, because I think there was a sense that universities felt they had to allow free speech unless there was a very good reason, unless it was illegal. Which they sort of had to,” he said.

But, also speaking to THE, Arif Ahmed, the OfS’ director of freedom of speech and academic freedom, said that while language “may be offensive or shocking to some, its legality may be highly dependent on the particular facts of the case”. 

“That is why the OfS cannot offer blanket guidance on, for example, the lawfulness of certain phrases,” he said. 

However, Ahmed said that the OfS was “clear that lawful speech does not, and cannot, include discrimination against, or harassment of, Jewish students or staff – or any other conduct prohibited by law”.

Other findings in the wide-ranging Hepi report include:

• Disruption from encampments included unauthorised entry into staff meetings, interruptions to graduations and open days, and vandalisation of university buildings
• There was support for encampments’ goals – if not always their methods – from probably a majority of students and staff, but much of this support was passive, and there were also a “large number” of others, including some Jewish students and staff, who were strongly opposed
• Universities sought to protect freedom of staff and students to express themselves, while protecting student and staff well-being and safety, and preventing disruption to the proper functioning of the institution
• Institutions varied in their willingness to take legal or disciplinary action, with some fearing that a punitive approach would have led to even wider protests
• Many encampments welcomed “externals” who were not students or staff at their institution, which helped to sustain protests, but presented a challenge for institutions, since managers did not know who they were, could not take disciplinary action against them, and feared that they posed a risk to student and staff safety
• Meetings between university leaders and protesters were “often extremely difficult affairs for all involved”, with many students feeling that managers were not negotiating in good faith, and institutions often feeling that protesters’ demands were “simply unfeasible”.

The report says that ministers and the OfS should consider the likely impact of campus freedom of speech legislation on students, “and ensure it serves to create spaces for constructive dialogue among those with opposing views”.

It says that institutions “should carefully consider how to communicate with the community about [any future] encampment. Particularly effective communication may be compassionate but firm, reinforcing the requirement for protest to be peaceful and students to meet expectations of conduct, but demonstrating genuine concern for protestors’ and others’ well-being. For some institutions, this might mean adopting a warmer tone than previously.”

Institutions should “consider whether and how to engage with protestors”, noting that talks may allow students to air “legitimate and important criticisms”, and provide institutions with a chance to understand how they might respond, the report says.

While some institutions might tolerate some disruption, not taking any disciplinary action can send “the message that future protestors can act with impunity, with serious consequences for affected students and staff”, and legal action “may be appropriate as a last resort”, the report says.

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com