Case Summaries
Back to Case SummariesFree speech - CS082603
Case summary August 2026 | Not Justified
A student submitted a policy proposal to their student representative body (SRB) that a "men’s officer” position should be created. The proposal was discussed at both an in-person event and online before being voted on. It did not pass. The student then complained to the SRB that during the discussions racist, sexist and inaccurate comments had been made which described white men as oppressors. They said they had been accused of being racist, homophobic and transphobic, which they felt was a libellous attack on their reputation. The SRB did not uphold the complaint and the student escalated it to the provider for a review. The provider also dismissed the student’s complaint.
The student complained to us. We did not uphold the student’s complaint (we decided the complaint was Not Justified). Both the SRB and the provider had carefully considered the need to uphold free speech within the law, and had taken reasonable steps to encourage respectful, reasoned debate about the proposal. This included reminding all students that comments should be directed toward policy content, rather than individuals. The online discussion was also moderated. The student had the opportunity to respond and defend their views as part of the debate.
The evidence indicated that the SRB had balanced freedom of expression with ensuring the debate was conducted in accordance with clearly outlined expectations of behaviour. The provider decided that the comments about oppression had occurred in the context of reasonable debate and weren’t generalised or stereotypical comments about white males that could have been considered racist or sexist. It also concluded that the comments had been directed at the policy, rather the student, and were not a personal or libellous attack. We carefully reviewed the records of the discussions. We could see that feeling was running high due to the sensitive nature of the issues being discussed, and we were sympathetic to the strength of the student’s feelings about the issues and the distress that they may have felt because of some of the comments. However, we thought that the provider’s decision on this part of the complaint was reasonable.