Case Summaries

The provider investigated the student for two potential breaches of its student code of conduct.

1. That the student had refused to remove the signs when asked to do so and had also prevented security from removing them. The provider said the signs were causing distress to its community.
2. That they had caused disruption to the provider’s business due to an unplanned protest, which resulted in a major building on its campus needing to be locked and access to the building restricted.

The provider decided that the student had breached the code of conduct in both matters. The student was required to complete a written reflection and the provider issued them with a written warning.

The student complained to us because they thought that the provider's disciplinary decision had interfered with their right to free speech. We partly upheld the student’s complaint (we decided the complaint was Partly Justified).

We didn’t think that the provider’s decision about the first allegation was reasonable. We thought that the provider should have considered the balance between the distress it said the signs had caused members of its community, with its legal obligations in relation to freedom of speech. We didn’t think it had properly considered whether or not the speech was lawful and whether it was reasonable to restrict the student's speech by asking them to remove the signs.

We decided that the provider’s decision about the second allegation was reasonable because the evidence showed the unplanned protest had caused disruption to teaching and learning.

The student had since graduated from the provider, so the impact of the penalties on them was limited. Because the provider would have applied the same low-level penalties even if the provider had only upheld the second breach under its internal procedures, we didn’t think it was proportionate to recommend that the provider reconsider the first reported breach. Instead, we recommended that the provider apologise to the student and offer them £250 as compensation for having made an unreasonable decision in relation to the first reported breach.

We also recommended that the provider deliver training and provide guidance on its duties in relation to freedom of speech for all staff involved in making decisions under its disciplinary procedures.