Protecting The Space

Andy Burnham may not be bothered enough to vote on assisted suicide, but Tim Sigsworth writes:

A university has warned an academic for opposing assisted suicide on social media. Dr Kevin Yuill, emeritus professor of history at the University of Sunderland, accused the institution of a “Kafkaesque” attack on free speech after he was sent a warning letter by one of its executives.

The academic was told to “reflect carefully” in June after the university received a complaint about the the “tone and nature” of his social media presence, which he uses to campaign against assisted suicide. Dr Yuill, 63, told The Telegraph the letter was a “veiled threat” that was “out of order” and risked harming academic free expression. “It’s an outrageous thing for them to do,” he said. “It seemed to be a veiled threat, and I think it’s too reactive.”

The university did not ask Dr Yuill for his response to the complaint and initially did not disclose to him what it was about. In the emails, seen by The Telegraph, he was instead asked to “reflect carefully” about his emeritus title because “carries an expectation that its use does not adversely affect the institution or conflict with its core values, including respect and responsible public discourse”.

“That was out of order,” Dr Yuill said. “It’s fair enough if they want to say something like, ‘Oh, we’ve received this complaint, what is your response?’ That would have been a reasonable thing. It’s a bit Kafkaesque when you get a complaint that you have no idea what it’s about, and or even which medium it was about. Where have I said this? When have I said this? To whom have I said this? If they had just said, ‘Look, obviously, please don’t bring the university into disrepute by anything you say’, I would have assured them that I don’t.”

Dr Yuill, who is chief executive of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, was not initially allowed to see the complaint on the grounds that it was “submitted by a private individual and contains that individual’s personal and sensitive information”. It was later disclosed to him with his offending posts and the complainant’s details redacted, meaning he still does not know what the comments which prompted the complaint were.

The complaint centred on four accusations, including that he had shown a “lack of empathy” in debating assisted suicide and had described pro-assisted suicide campaigners as “Orwellian”. It also claimed he was causing “reputational damage” to Sunderland by “weaponising his public platform” and that his advocacy opposing assisted suicide meant he did not have the “objectivity expected of a university academic”. The university – which said in the emails that it “recognises and supports the principles of academic freedom and lawful expression” – did not take any disciplinary action in response to the complaint and Dr Yuill remains emeritus professor.

Lawyers for the academic are now asking the university to “make amends” by apologising to Dr Yuill and making a public statement expressing its support for freedom of speech. They argue that Dr Yuill’s beliefs are protected under the university’s code of practice on freedom of speech and academic freedom, the Equality Act 2010 and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. “I’m hoping it will make them think twice before reacting to complaints of a similar nature, so my hope is it will be a bit of a lesson for them, which is why I’ve gone full on with this whole thing,” he said. “Not because it’s a threat to me, but for younger colleagues who are in paid positions, I don’t think it’s in anybody’s interest to have Sunderland censoring their ideas or even pushing them to self-censor their ideas.”

 Freddie Attenborough, research director of the Committee for Academic Freedom, which is supporting Dr Yuill, said the case was concerning. “Academic freedom means little if academics have to worry that expressing controversial views within the law might put their institutional status or privileges at risk,” he said. Universities should be protecting the space for those disagreements, not adding institutional pressure to one side of them.” Elliot Hammer, the employment solicitor representing Dr Yuill, said: “Academic freedom is incredibly important for the proper functioning of our higher education sector, and so I’m proud to represent Dr Yuill in this case.”

A spokesman for the University of Sunderland said: “The university has always supported, and will continue to support, the rights of its academics to freedom of speech, academic freedom and freedom of expression. The university requested that Emeritus Professor Yuill consider how his association with the university is presented in his own public communications and take steps where appropriate to ensure there is a clear distinction between his personal views and those of the university.”