Case Summaries
Back to Case SummariesFree speech - CS082602
Case summary August 2026 | Not Justified
A student was withdrawn from their provider after they failed their final attempt at a core module. They complained to the provider that the marking of their work had departed from the published assessment criteria and had been influenced by the political views expressed in their work. The student said this was a violation of their freedom of speech and a breach of the Equality Act because it amounted to discrimination on the basis of religion or belief.
The provider did not uphold the student’s complaint. The student was unhappy with the provider’s decision and complained to us. We did not uphold their complaint (we decided it was Not Justified).
There was evidence to show the student’s work had already been marked and moderated in accordance with the provider’s academic regulations. However, in response to the concerns the student raised in their complaint, the provider arranged for their work to be reviewed by another member of academic staff with relevant academic expertise. We thought this was good practice. The reviewer confirmed that the original marking and moderation had been carried out accurately and without bias, and that it was based on the assessment criteria. They concluded that the overall mark awarded was reasonable. The provider therefore decided that the student’s complaint was ultimately a challenge to its academic judgment.
We saw that all three markers had identified the same issues with the student’s assignments and said that they had not fulfilled the assignment brief. While we normally consider the content of feedback to be a matter of academic judgment, we noted that none of the feedback provided by the markers commented on any political ideology and there was no evidence to suggest that the mark was based on anything other than the assessment criteria. We decided it was reasonable for the provider to dismiss the complaint because it was a challenge to its academic judgment.