The University supports the view of the European Court of Human Rights that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and that such freedom is applicable not only to information or ideas that are favourably received, but also to those that have the potential to offend, shock or disturb the listener.

Staff and students primarily determine the subjects and topics of discussion that take place on campus. Pluralism, tolerance, and broadmindedness are essential components of a democratic society, and all views, including those that can be difficult to hear, should be able to be expressed and heard with tolerance and mutual respect.

The University supports the right to hold conferences and talks on controversial topics. We are committed to ensuring that free speech and academic freedom are reflected in both our policies and practices and that free speech and debate are promoted, except where there are serious concerns about public disorder or the direct incitement of violence or hatred.

In relation to free speech, Article 10 of the ECHR is given partial effect in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 10 provides that:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers… The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

In relation to academic freedom, the Education Reform Act 1998 provides (s202) that the University Commissioners shall "ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions…".

The University Commissioners' role was to harmonise the statutes of pre-1992 Royal Charter higher education institutions in relation to the dismissal of members of academic staff. They no longer exist, but s202 of the 1988 Act, which has never been repealed, was intended, according to the government of the time, to ensure the freedom of individual academics from unwarranted pressure from their colleagues and seniors in their universities and colleges and as a general affirmation of Parliament’s commitment to academic freedom.

The definition of academic freedom found in the 1998 Act also features in the Statutes of the University of Bristol. Statute 32 (“Academic Staff: Dismissal, Discipline, Grievance Procedures and related matters) states that it "shall be construed … to ensure that members of academic staff at the University have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges" and that in case of conflict the provision shall prevail over any other provision of the Statute, Ordnance or procedure "made under or to give effect to this Statute" and over any contractual term.

While we are committed to ensuring that there is freedom to challenge or debate the law, moral or other issues, we are also mindful of the fact that this does not give permission to break the law. Moreover, we recognise that the principle of free speech has the potential to be abused, including through incitement to violence or to breaches of the peace, or by the use of threatening words or behaviour (including the display of writing, signs or other visible representations) which are intended to provoke racial or religious hatred or hatred on grounds of sexual orientation, or to encourage or draw people into terrorism.

All of our staff and students have a responsibility to consider these issues in the course of their work. Restrictions on free speech may be permitted where the restriction is necessary to protect the reputation or rights of others, or in the interests of national security or public safety. This may include where speech incites hatred or violence, is otherwise unlawful, or where the exercise of free speech raises serious concerns regarding the safety of students, staff, or members of the public. In this way we are aware the protections given to academic freedom are a privilege and that with privilege comes responsibility. Our polices are designed to ensure that the exercise of free speech is done within the bounds of the law, with mutual respect and tolerance and with cognisance of our public sector equality duty.

In the context of education, the Equality Act prohibits discrimination or harassment as follows: the responsible body of the institution must not discriminate against a student in the way it provides education for the student; in the way it affords the student access to a benefit, facility or services; by subjecting the student to any other detriment. The institution must not harass a student. s94(2) of the Equality Act 2010 makes it clear that the Act does not apply to "anything done in connection with the content of the curriculum". In other words, the Act cannot be breached by any content taught by an academic, though it could be breached by the manner of teaching.

We take all allegations of discrimination, racism and hate speech very seriously. If, as an employer, we take action against any employee in relation to such allegations, we would do so in line with our internal procedures, which involve a full investigation of relevant facts and circumstances. If, following any such full investigation, an employee was found to have a case to answer, a full disciplinary process would be required, inclusive, if appropriate, of a right to appeal.

In the UK, no employer can simply take action against any employee without going through such a process. Moreover, any discussion of any action that the University might take with a third party may lead to an inference of bias in that process and prejudice any action that might be taken. We are simply not permitted to disclose to any third party any action that we might (or might not take) in relation to an individual member of staff’s employment: that information is confidential.