Case Summaries

We did not uphold the complaint (we decided it was Not Justified). We thought that the provider had reasonably considered its duty to ensure freedom of speech alongside the student’s rights under the Equality Act 2010. The context in which the other students’ comments had been made, and the manner of their expression, were important considerations.

The provider had recognised that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, but it had also noted that the Act protects holding gender critical views as a philosophical belief. It decided that the other students’ views hadn’t been expressed in a way that was overtly disrespectful. The comments were made in an academic setting and were part of an ongoing conversation that had arisen from the subject of the class. The provider decided that the students were allowed to express differing opinions in an academic space, even if others found them offensive, and that it would not take any further action in relation to the comments. The provider decided that the lecturer had quickly and effectively steered the conversation back to the session subject when they noticed the comments in the chat box.

We thought it was relevant for the provider to have considered that learning about philosophical arguments often results in digression, which is part of the exploration and exchange of ideas. While we recognised that the student had strong feelings about the comments and had found them offensive, we decided that the provider’s decision was reasonable.