Mini Case Studies

Mini case study one

Exploring academic freedom: Associate Lecturers in curriculum delivery

In this scenario, an AL disagrees with the content of the module curriculum they are expected to deliver. They decide to express their disagreement to their students in a tutorial.

A subject example could be the mechanism of the formation of the rings of Saturn. The module teaches the origin is from a moon that was destroyed by gravitation forces. The AL believes that they were formed from comets.

Potential scenarios

1. The AL tells the students that the module content is incorrect, and they should learn the theory supported by the AL.
2. The AL tells the students that the module content is incorrect, but they must learn it otherwise they will fail the assessments. They inform the students of the theory they support but warn them not to include this theory in answers.
3. The AL tells the students that the module content is one theory but as with many aspects of science there are other theories with supporting evidence. They would like them to consider the theory they support so they develop critical thinking, but they should be careful in an assessment to make it clear that they understand the module content-supported theory.

Possible academic freedom/free speech principles to consider

1. Do not disadvantage students in their preparation for answering questions and assessments.
2. Respect the module content theory/approach.
3. Provide evidence of any alternative theory but consider carefully if the students’ learning experience is benefitting from the alternative view being presented.
4. Do not criticise the module team for inclusion of the original theory.
5. Inform line managers of your approach and escalate your view for consideration by the module team.

Mini case study two

Social media and freedom of expression - use of X/Twitter

Consider how the OU should respond to each of these tweets.

Issues to consider from our Social Media Policy

Our social media policy covers private use of social media by staff (but does not define when a staff member is using social media as an individual outside of their employment).

We advise staff “to carefully consider using language which could be deemed as offensive.”

Possible free speech principles to consider:

There is a presumption in favour of free speech and academic freedom, i.e. the starting point of analysis is that speech is lawful/permitted.

Any interference with free speech must be made on a lawful basis and be proportionate.

Universities, including the OU, are expected to weather proportionate criticism arising from the exercise of academic freedom and free speech.

Possible equality considerations

Under the Equality Act 2010, harassment is defined as: “where person A engages in unwanted conduct related to a person B’s protected characteristic (such as a protected belief), and that conduct has the purpose or effect of violating person B’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for person B.”

Mini case study three

Public criticism of OU policy

Professor C serves on an EDI committee for the OU. They disagree with a decision made by the committee to promote the building of gender-neutral toilets.

Scenario 1: Professor C posts on social media from a personal account that mentions they work for the OU in the profile. The post states that the OU has again proven itself to be a terrible university run by the woke.

Scenario 2: Professor C posts as in 1 but this time from an official OU account that exists to communicate with other staff about staff training opportunities.

Scenario 3: Professor C posts on social media from a personal account that mentions they work for the OU. The post states that the OU has again proven itself to be a terrible university run by the woke. The post says that current chair of that committee should be removed from their post.

Possible academic freedom/free speech principles to consider:

Academic freedom requires a very high level of protection under the law. The European Court of Human Rights, in the majority judgement in Erdogan v Turkey, has set out that academic freedom should receive the ‘utmost protection’ under article 10 of the ECHR and “is not restricted to academic or scientific research, but also extends to the academics’ freedom to express freely their views and opinions, even if controversial or unpopular, in the areas of their research, professional expertise and competence”. Professional expertise and competence will apply to serving on an OU Committee.

There is a presumption in favour of free speech and academic freedom, i.e. the starting point of analysis is that speech is lawful/permitted.

Any interference with free speech must be made on a lawful basis and be proportionate.

Universities, including the OU, are expected to weather proportionate criticism arising from the exercise of academic freedom and free speech.

OU senior managers and leaders should be mindful that expressing personal views within a context where their views may suggest they are the views of the OU may be inappropriate. Leaders should be careful, therefore, not to be seen to be taking one side of a debate, or favouring one view over another in expressing personal views; to do so risks breaching the OU’s obligations to secure free speech and academic freedom within the law.

Possible social media considerations

The University must ensure that the University’s confidentiality and reputation are maintained, and that staff do not subject others to online abuse.

Employees are reminded of their obligations under the University employment policies and standards when using social media sites, to behave professionally and respectfully to colleagues, students or other University contacts and not to bring the University into disrepute.

Possible Code of Conduct considerations

Committee members sign up to supporting (and not undermining) the aims, activity and effective functioning of the Committee.

If a member strongly disagrees with a decision and feels they cannot support it, they may choose to resign. This is often seen as a principled stance, maintaining personal integrity while respecting the collective decision.

Possible bullying and harassment considerations

Under the OU’s Bullying and Harassment Policy, Bullying is “… identified as intimidating, hostile or humiliating treatment by one or more individuals.”

Under the Equality Act 2010, harassment is defined as: “where person A engages in unwanted conduct related to a person B’s protected characteristic (such as a protected belief), and that conduct has the purpose or effect of violating person B’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for person B.”