Case Summaries

The student submitted a complaint to the provider about the decision. The student believed that the examiners had been negatively influenced by the particular views the student was expressing in their research. 

After the student’s progress exam, the student’s relationship with their supervisors broke down. As the student also needed to retake several compulsory taught modules, the provider said that it would work to appoint new supervisors while the student re-sat the modules. The provider suspended the research component of the student’s studies entirely for a year to ensure they weren’t disadvantaged by the temporary absence of a supervisory team and could prioritise their re-sits. The student also complained about this decision.

The provider did not uphold the student’s complaints, but it offered the student £500 as compensation for delays in the complaints process. The student complained to us.

This was a complex complaint with several elements. The core of the complaint was that the student believed the provider had accused them of unethical conduct and that it had treated them unfairly because they held gender critical philosophical beliefs. We did not uphold the student’s complaint (we decided it was Not Justified).

We concluded that deciding whether the survey the student wanted to carry out presented an ethical risk was a matter of academic judgment, because academic expertise is required to assess the ethical implications of a research methodology within a specific area of academic research. The examiners were appropriately qualified to make that assessment and had given clear reasons for their decision. It was reasonable for the provider to say the student should pause their research survey until steps had been taken to mitigate the risk. We did not think that the examiners raising concerns about the ethical risk meant that the student had been accused of acting unethically.

The evidence we saw showed that the provider had made decisions on the student’s progress and studies based on academic judgments about their research methodology and academic performance. None of the evidence suggested that the provider had taken action because of the nature of the research topic itself or any views held by the student. We were satisfied that the provider had treated the student fairly.

We had some concerns about the way the provider initially handled the complaint, but decided these had not affected its final decision. We were also critical of significant delays in the process, but decided that the provider’s offer of £500 was a reasonable remedy for the distress and inconvenience this would have caused the student. We suggested that the provider re-make this offer.