Dear Lord Mendoza,
We are writing about the proposed event due to take place on 17th November featuring Nathan Cofnas. The event is advertised as “Is DEI Undermining Higher Education?” where Nathan Cofnas is the only speaker. We ask you to place this letter before Oriel College’s Governing Body and request that it consider the matters raised as a matter of urgency and provide a response within the next seven days.
We recognise Oriel’s duty to protect lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom but in doing so they have to comply with legislation and the College’s Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech. I am asking the Governing Body to explain how it has assessed its legal responsibilities, the event’s likely impact on students and staff and the steps it will take to protect students and staff from unlawful harassment. In light of Oriel College’s legal obligations, we ask that the event be cancelled, the right to freedom of speech does not override obligations under the Equality Act.
Nathan Cofnas has previously written that Black people are less intelligent than other racial groups and that, under a meritocratic system, they would “disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment.” While we recognise and support the importance of lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom, these statements raise serious concerns about the potential impact of this event on Black students and staff. The College has a responsibility to consider those concerns alongside its obligations to protect freedom of speech, and to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place.
The responsibilities of the College are clearly set out in the College’s Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech. We refer in particular to Annex A of the Code. Please can you confirm that the required assessments, including risk assessments were carried out by the Senior Dean in relation to the request by a student group to hold the event. Please provide copies of those assessments, in particular the assessment at A3 and A9 of the code.
Please also confirm regarding A4 which senior college officers the Senior Dean consulted about the implications of giving permission for the event to take place. If no senior college offices were consulted, please explain why this did not happen. Annex A6 sets out that in exceptional circumstances it may be reasonable for the Senior Dean to refuse permission for an event if the ‘Senior Dean reasonably believes (from the nature of the speakers..) that the meeting is likely to include the expression of viewpoints that are reasonably believed to be highly controversial and/or and the Organiser will not permit contrary or opposing viewpoints to be held or expressed’
Equality Act responsibilities
Under section 91 of the Equality Act 2010, the governing body of a higher education institution must not discriminate against students in providing education or access to facilities and services, subject them to other detriment, harass them, or victimise them.
Section 26 defines harassment as unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic, that violates an individual’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment and requires consideration of the circumstances, the student’s perception, the circumstances and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. Please confirm how Oriel College complied with its Public Sector Equality duties in sanctioning this event.Assessment and reassurance for students
Please confirm whether Oriel has already carried out a written assessment of the event’s equality impact and the risk of students experiencing harassment related to a protected characteristic. If it has, please share the assessment with students in advance, subject to any necessary redactions. If no written assessment exists, please explain how the decision maker has considered these matters and whether a written assessment will now be prepared.
In particular, please explain:
• how Oriel has assessed the event’s proposed content, format, and likely impact on students.
• whether the talk will include claims about Professor Jason Arday and, if so, how the College has considered the accuracy and evidential basis of any claims presented.
• what steps the College will take to prevent and respond to conduct at the event that may constitute unlawful harassment, discrimination, threats, or targeted abuse.
• what reporting route students can use before, during and after the event, and what support will be available to students who raise concerns.
• how the Senior Dean and Dean team will be involved in student welfare and the handling of any reports; and
• how the College will communicate these arrangements to students beforehand, so they understand what protections and support are available.
Confirmation of compliance and freedom of speech
Please identify who authorised the event, what legal and welfare considerations informed that decision, and whether the Governing Body has reviewed and approved the arrangements. Please also confirm whether the Governing Body will consider the concerns raised in this letter collectively or delegate their consideration and if so, to whom.
We understand that Oriel College has duties to secure lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom. If a decision is made, following this representation, not to cancel the event, please explain what proportionate safeguards will be put in place. In order to comply with public sector equality duty to eliminate harassment, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations we would suggest including whether the event will have an independent chair, a suitably qualified respondent and a moderated question and answer session. Please explain the reasons for any decision not to adopt these suggested objective safeguarding measures.
We therefore ask the Governing Body to review the decision to host or support this event, explain how its balanced its freedom of speech obligations with its responsibilities towards its staff and students and provide a written response before it proceeds, setting out the assessment undertaken, the safeguard agreed and the reasons for its decision.
