Lucrative educational and research collaborations between England’s universities and foreign institutions linked to autocratic governments could be terminated under a new structure aimed at preserving freedom of speech on campus. Arif Ahmed, previously a philosophy professor at Cambridge, has been appointed by the UK government as England’s champion for academic free speech. Ahmed stated that these partnerships could be terminated or renegotiated if there’s proof of foreign students facing limitations on their speech while studying in England.
Questions regarding the influence of foreign institutions, such as China’s Confucius Institutes, over British universities have frequently been raised among UK politicians. Similar concerns were voiced about Dublin’s UCD Confucius Institute. A committee of the British parliament concluded last year that these institutes, which collaborate with many major universities, were attempting to manipulate narratives about China.
Ahmed’s appointment as the guardian of academic free speech came about via the Office for Students (OFS), which is the regulatory body for universities in England. He possesses the authority to implement measures with both universities and students’ unions to ensure the protection of free speech.
Ahmed mentioned that his office would likely step in when international students came to study in England under speech restrictions imposed by a foreign government or institution. He expressed that it would be a worrying situation if students were required to conform to political speech regulations “or take orders from an embassy” during their time in England.
He also highlighted his apprehensions about the “chilling effect” of being overly dependent on partnerships with foreign institutions from autocratic nations, especially when there were no formal rules limiting student speech.
Ahmed’s authority to take decisive action against England’s universities in order to address free speech issues is based on the OFS’s role in allocating funds from UK taxpayers. To be eligible for public funds, universities must be registered with the OFS – this registration could be at risk if they do not implement Ahmed’s recommendations.
Parliament established his position in response to the intensifying drag of UK universities into the so-called “culture wars”. Instances of this trend include event cancellations due to objections from certain interest groups, particularly when controversial subjects such as transgender rights or the Gaza conflict are the topics of discussion. He also expressed unease about academics receiving sanctions from their employers as a result of complaints.
“Free speech, within legal limits, should encapsulate ideas that are extremely shocking, offensive and unnerving,” stated Professor Arif Ahmed.
This week, Ahmed pointed out seven-year-old union research data, indicating that 34% of UK academics were indulging in self-censorship due to fear of backlash. This figure was nearly twice as high compared to other parts of Europe at the time, he added.
He referred to an OFS survey from last year, based in his location, which suggested that one in seven students felt their ability to express themselves freely on campus was restricted. “This signifies an alarming rate,” Ahmed noted. He mentioned that the OFS plans to undertake additional research to monitor the fear of self-censorship among academics in the wake of the 2017 union poll.
A new complaint system will be launched in English universities from August (universities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are supervised by devolved administrations).
The new procedure allows students, academics, guest speakers, and other complainants to file freedom of speech complaints against institutions and student unions to Ahmed’s office for review. Earlier, complainants often had to use costly legal processes to raise concerns.
As of September 2025, the regulations connecting the registration of English universities to their duty of safeguarding free speech will be reinforced, making it simpler to withhold public money from institutions accused of stifling free expression.
Ahmed avoided getting involved in specific situations this week, such as whether chanting by pro-Palestinian protestors of the phrase “from the river to the sea” on campus would cause concern for his office.
“Free speech, bound by the law, must encompass the expression of extremely shocking, offensive, and disturbing ideas,” reiterated Ahmed. He stressed the importance of protecting the expression of such ideas, especially those associated with political controversies.
“If they are not freely explored on campuses, it raises democratic legitimacy questions,” he added.