The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 demands that UK universities open up debate and safeguard free expression for controversial or unpopular views. We have yet to see, however, how this act will sit alongside the Equality Act 2010, which requires universities to eliminate harassment, advance equality of opportunity and promote good relations, including between students of different religions and beliefs. Our research suggests these two frameworks can pull universities in opposite directions, and students are caught in the middle.
In 2022, we surveyed 4,618 students across 133 UK universities. We found that almost two-thirds (62 per cent) report hearing insensitive comments about their worldview at university, and not just from peers; 41 per cent reported that those remarks came from staff. More than one in five students (23 per cent) say they’ve been mistreated because of their religion or worldview.
Since we collected our data, hostility on campuses has continued to rise; students have experienced unprecedented increases in antisemitism and Islamophobia following the events of 7 October 2023. Universities are being urged to encourage more open debate at the same time that religious-based hostility is an increased risk.
- It’s been emotional: how to manage difficult student interactions
- Let’s teach students to disagree well
- How to manage difficult university staff discussions
Findings reflect perceptions of an increase in self-censorship on campus. Over 50 per cent of Christian students report feeling silenced from sharing their experiences of prejudice at university. This number is higher than we might expect, possibly reflecting Christian students’ fall from majority status as their numbers on campus steadily decline. Religious-minority students, meanwhile, report more instances of their universities failing to accommodate dietary requirements and religious observances, such as festivals. And non-religious students aren’t immune, either; over a quarter (28 per cent) report experiencing insensitive comments about their worldview from both their peers and staff.
Type of institution matters. Students at ancient, elite universities report the highest rates of mistreatment, insensitive comments and feeling silenced. However, these institutions are also the sites where we are most likely to find “provocative encounters”, the term we use to describe constructive, stretching conversations that help students critically examine their own beliefs. In other words, universities fostering the most potentially transformative debate can also enable the most hurtful exchanges.
The real challenge, then, is whether universities can create conditions where debate stretches and challenges, without tipping into harassment or exclusion.
It is tempting for institutions to point to what has improved. In the almost 15 years since the passing of the Equality Act, universities have produced equality and diversity statements and strategies, often drawing on reassuring language like “multi-faith” and “inclusion”. Indeed, many students say campuses generally feel like safe places to express their worldview, and chaplaincy provision and prayer spaces have expanded. But a substantial minority, almost one in five (19 per cent), neither agree nor disagree that their needs are met or that campus is safe. This ambivalent middle might suggest more nuanced experiences of inconsistent student support, with universities accommodating some needs while neglecting others.
Paperwork may be partly responsible for the gap between policy and reality. As sociologist Sara Ahmed has argued, policy documents often “perform” equality rather than enact it. Put simply, a policy becomes proof of progress, while the day-to-day culture goes unchallenged. Our findings echo this warning: sophisticated EDI webpages and formal documents do not guarantee respectful day-to-day interactions. As universities respond to the Office for Students’ regulation to formalise codes of practice in relation to freedom of speech, they risk performing commitment to free expression while ignoring the everyday experiences of students navigating bias and insensitivity.
If universities are serious about fostering open debate while preventing exclusion, they need to move from rhetoric to practice.
First, offer staff (academic and professional) practical training on religion, belief and non-religious commitments, based in real scenarios such as examinations and group work.
Use an interfaith calendar, acknowledging religious festivals in university communications and offering simple scheduling adjustments for religious observance.
Last, raise the bar for dialogue, creating forums where students can disagree deeply but without humiliation or exclusion. Hold students, societies and staff alike accountable for maintaining that standard, whether by training staff to foster class conditions in which this can be done respectfully or working with student unions to empower student-led initiatives to do the same.
Freedom of speech and equality should not be seen as opposing values, yet the real test for UK universities is whether they can hold both in tension. Can they protect the right to voice difficult views while ensuring that no student feels that their religion, or non-religious commitment, makes them a target for prejudice? Our evidence suggests that the sector has not yet achieved that balance. Moving forward under the scrutiny of the new Freedom of Speech Act, it is unclear whether universities will rise to the challenge, or let one legal duty undermine another.
Lucy Peacock is a senior research fellow in the Woolf Institute affiliated with the University of Cambridge. She is co-author, with Kristin Aune, Tom Fryer and Mathew Guest, of “Multi-faith in policy only? Religion and belief inequalities at UK universities since the Equality Act”, which was published (open access) in the British Journal of Sociology of Education on 30 September 2025.
If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.
comment