Category: Universities

We Should Celebrate – Not Discourage – Overseas Students in the UK

As a university academic, I am disheartened by the way some politicians and sections of the media portray overseas students. Rather than acknowledging the many economic, cultural, and academic benefits these students bring to the UK, they are too often depicted as a burden. This is a narrative that is not only misleading but potentially damaging.

International students choose to come to the UK because of the global reputation and quality of our universities. Despite the very high tuition fees they are charged, they continue to enrol in large numbers. These students bring with them diverse perspectives, enrich our academic communities, and foster global networks that benefit British research, innovation, and diplomacy.

The financial contribution of international students is also well established. They help sustain many of our universities, support thousands of jobs across the country, and contribute billions to the UK economy each year. Beyond that, they play an integral role in cultural exchange, helping to make our campuses and our society more open, inclusive, and outward-looking.

Yet, education is a global market. These students have choices. If they begin to feel unwelcome in the UK — whether this is due to hostile political rhetoric, restrictive visa policies, or a lack of post-study opportunities — they will go elsewhere for their university education. Other countries are competing aggressively for their presence, and the UK risks losing out not just on tuition income, but on talent, innovation, and global goodwill.

It is time for a more constructive and respectful discourse around international students. We should remember that recognises international students are not a problem to be solved, but as are an important part of what makes our universities world-leading and culturally enriching for all their students.

Balancing Free Speech and Institutional Responsibility in England’s Universities

The Office for Students (the independent regulator of higher education in England) has suggested that students should be prepared to be “shocked and offended” at university as part of the educational process. This policy seeks to promote freedom of expression and open debate within academic settings. However, implementing such an approach poses significant challenges for both university staff and students. Institutions must not only consider the legal boundaries surrounding freedom of expression in the UK but also manage the practical and ethical complexities involved in fostering an environment that encourages robust discussion while protecting the rights and well-being of all members of the university community.

The first challenge for universities is that the UK does not allow full freedom of expression. There are many laws that limit what people in the UK can say, and these are often different from limits on freedom of expression in other countries. For example, the USA generally has fewer restrictions on freedom of expression than the UK.

UK laws aim to balance freedom of expression with other societal interests, such as public safety, national security, and the protection of individual rights. Some of the relevant laws include:

1. Public Order Act 1986

2. Communications Act 2003

3. Malicious Communications Act 1988

4. Defamation Act 2013

5. Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019

6. Online Safety Act 2023

7. Obscene Publications Act 1959

8. Equality Act 2010

Universities will have to consider whether the views that their staff and students express are in breach of any of these laws. Incorrect interpretation of the law by universities may expose them, and the staff or students expressing potentially illegal views, to legal action.

Beyond legal constraints, universities face additional challenges in enforcing internal policies. As responsible employers, universities will have policies to address issues such as bullying, harassment, and discrimination — particularly in relation to protected characteristics such as sex, ethnicity, and disability. Failing to protect individuals or groups could result in internal complaints, referrals to external bodies such as the Office for Students, and potentially legal action. The dividing line between what is legal and illegal may not be clarified until tested in court. For example, how does allowing students to be “shocked and offended” align or conflict with the legal duty to prevent harassment?

The government has not provided clear evidence that a major problem exists regarding staff and students being unable to express their views freely within UK universities. What we may see instead is an increase in complaints and legal challenges, which could consume significant institutional time and resources. Although the aims of the Office for Students may be well-intentioned, the practical challenges of implementing this policy are considerable. Universities must carefully navigate complex legal frameworks and their own institutional responsibilities to ensure both freedom of expression and protection from harm.

Without clearer guidance and stronger evidence of a significant underlying problem, there is a risk that universities will expend considerable time and resources responding to legal uncertainties and complaints. A more constructive and collaborative approach — one that supports universities in fostering open debate while upholding legal and ethical standards — may ultimately prove more effective in promoting freedom of expression within higher education.

Why Indirect Costs on Research Grants are Essential for Universities

In recent days, there has been discussion about the “overheads” or “indirect” costs that universities add on to the cost of research projects. This has been driven by a decision by the US government to reduce the indirect costs of research on grants awarded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) from the current 60% to 15%. Comments from people such as Elon Musk has suggested these costs are wasteful and can therefore be easily cut from research grants. In this blog, I make the case for retaining a fair amount of indirect costs on research grants.

Without the indirect costs that universities receive on government research grants, universities would struggle to provide the essential support and infrastructure required for high-quality research to take place. While direct research costs (such as staff salaries, laboratory equipment, travel and consumables) are essential, they are only part of the funding needed. Research relies heavily on a wide array of indirect resources that ensure long-term sustainability, efficiency, and the proper functioning of universities.

Indirect costs include funding for essential services, such as maintaining research facilities and buildings, providing IT infrastructure and support, managing financial systems, and ensuring compliance through administrative and monitoring processes. Without adequate funding to cover these areas, research projects would be more difficult to complete successfully.

To address this challenge and ensure that universities receive adequate funding beyond direct project expenses, the UK government introduced the Full Economic Costs model. The Full Economic Costs model is designed to fairly and transparently allocate funding that covers the full range of costs associated with research activities.

Under this system, universities are able to recover a more realistic portion of the actual costs incurred in hosting and conducting research, helping to bridge the gap between the direct funding provided by grants and the true expenses they face. This model recognises that indirect costs, although not always visible at the project level, are vital to the successful completion and long-term sustainability of research projects.

The issue of indirect cost recovery is not unique to the UK. In the United States, for example, universities receive indirect cost reimbursements through a negotiated rate with federal agencies, but this system now also faces scrutiny over transparency and fairness. Comparisons like these highlight the importance of continually refining models such as the Full Economic Costs model to ensure they remain fair value for governments, taxpayers and universities.

The successful delivery of research projects relies on more than just securing grants for individual projects. It requires a support system that includes well-maintained buildings and other facilities, appropriate technology, efficient administrative processes, and skilled personnel; all of which are sustained by indirect funding.

Freedom of Speech in Universities

The balance between free speech and its limitations is a challenging aspect of modern society, including academic environments like universities. In the context of universities, the promotion of free speech is vital to academic freedom and the pursuit of knowledge. Universities are traditionally places where diverse ideas and perspectives can be explored and debated. However, this freedom comes with the responsibility to ensure that speech does not incite violence, promote hate, or harm others.

The legal limits on freedom of speech in societies like the UK are in place to protect individuals and groups from harm, such as laws against hate speech, incitement to violence, and defamation. These laws acknowledge that while the free exchange of ideas is fundamental, there are boundaries necessary for the protection of public order and individual rights.

In addition to these legal limits on freedom of expression, there are also social constraints on what can be said which vary from society to society. These constraints can vary over time and lead to adverse consequences for individuals even if what they say is not illegal.

The discussion around sanctions for universities that limit the rights of students to express their views is part of a broader debate about how universities can create an environment that encourages open dialogue while also maintaining safety and respect for all students. It’s about finding the right balance between allowing free and open discourse and protecting the rights and dignity of all members of the university community.

Hence, the concept of absolute free speech does not exist in practical terms due to necessary legal, social and ethical constraints. The challenge lies in ensuring that these limits are applied in a way that is fair, just, and conducive to a healthy, productive public discourse.

Universities have a responsibility to create an environment where all students feel safe and respected, and where they can learn and grow without fear of harassment or discrimination. This means that universities need to have clear policies on freedom of speech, and they need to be prepared to take action against students who engage in harmful speech.