‘Watered-down’ equality policies revisited after Sussex ruling

The High Court’s decision to overturn the record fine issued to the University of Sussex over free speech concerns may make universities “pause and reassess” equality policy changes made in light of the original ruling, experts say.

A judge ruled last month that the Office for Students (OfS) had acted beyond its powers and with “a closed mind” over alleged breaches of academic freedom at Sussex, and blocked the record-breaking £585,000 fine.

The original ruling concluded that a “chilling effect” had arisen at the university owing to its trans and non-binary equality policy statement, first published in 2018, which led students and staff to “self-censor” to avoid disciplinary action “for expressing lawful views”. 

Following the outcome in April 2025, many trans inclusion policies disappeared from university websites, including at the universities of Essex, Exeter and Leeds. 

The University of Leeds issued a new trans inclusion policy in May 2025, just a month after the original ruling, and removed commitments to “positively represent trans people” – a phrase that also appeared in Sussex’s equality statement.

Its original policy also stated that transphobic bullying – which could include “speeches and writings” – would “not be tolerated”, but this was also removed from the revised version.  

Lawyers said while universities were unlikely to reinstate previous equality policies because of the court’s decision, the ruling opens the door for potential revisions.

One legal expert, speaking anonymously to protect clients, said while they did not believe universities would begin rowing back their policies, universities were now in a stronger position to defend their equality positions in the face of free speech concerns.

They outlined that the court said that where universities had conflicting policies between free speech and the right not to be bullied or harassed, they can decide “proportionately whether the speech needs to be restricted to achieve that goal”.

“The judgment leaves universities in a better place to understand how to strike the balances that are necessary. It is possible, and indeed I think likely, that some of the inclusion work that was going on before the focus on freedom of speech was not entirely proportionate,” they said, pointing to policies which required staff to portray trans people in a “positive” light, and said such requirements were unlikely to return to equality policies.

“If you think about a pendulum, it probably swung wholly one way, away from protection from harassment to freedom of speech, and now it’s swung slightly back to say, ‘No, you can protect people from harassment, but just make sure you’re not setting it at too low a level’.”

Universities should start from the position that “freedom of expression is an incredibly important human right”. If they feel they need to make a decision which might be seen as restricting free speech, “you need a really good justification for doing it, but once you’ve got that really good justification, you should be confident”.

Siobhan Mulrey, legal director for Bevan Brittan LLP, believed the decision is “likely to cause universities to pause and reassess policy changes that were made in response to the OfS’ original enforcement approach in the case”. 

She said that the latest updates mean there is “more of a balancing exercise” between equality policies and free speech obligations, and that universities will “welcome the High Court’s narrower interpretation of ‘governing documents’”, which saw it rule that Sussex’s equality document did not fall within the OfS’ remit.

“For universities still considering policy changes, the judgment provides reassurance that HEIs are entitled, and required, to balance equality duties with freedom of speech obligations, rather than prioritising one over the other in absolute terms. 

“We expect many universities will continue to review their policies over the coming months, not necessarily to remove equality protections, but to ensure policies are more carefully drafted, internally consistent and proportionate in how they regulate staff and student expression.”

Campaigners have remained firm in their calls for universities to reinstate their original policies in light of the High Court decision.

Jo Grady, the general secretary of the University and College Union, said that “every university that watered down policies designed to protect marginalised groups now needs to review those decisions with a view to reinstating the original guidance”.

“The government also needs to reassure universities the OfS will never again act unlawfully and ministers must now work with institutions and staff unions to review how the body will support the sector moving forward.”

The University of Leeds was approached for comment.