What happened at Sussex University? 

The Office for Students has issued a ruling fining the University of Sussex £585,000 for free speech and governance breaches because of a policy the university adopted in 2018. This report looks at why and how this policy was adopted and documents the events that led to the investigation.

Looking back at 2018

In 2018 vice-chancellor Adam Tickell led Sussex University to set up an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Unit and join the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme. He promised that the university would “take bold action to transform the campus into one that is experienced as inclusive by all our communities”. 

Meanwhile, concerns about the then government’s plan to reform the Gender Recognition Act towards gender self-ID were growing. Sussex University philosophy professor Kathleen Stock was becoming concerned about both the topic and the lack of academic engagement with it.

Stock speaks up

On 7th May 2018 Stock wrote her first public words on the topic in a personal blog post: 

“Something is afoot in academic philosophy. Beyond the academy, there’s a huge and impassioned discussion going on, around the apparent conflict between women-who-are-not-transwomen’s rights and interests, and transwomen’s rights and interests. And yet nearly all academic philosophers — including, surprisingly, feminist philosophers — are ignoring it.”¹

She followed this with a second blog post on 13th May 2018 calling on fellow academics to stop treating “gender-critical” views as “transphobic” and to recognise that the position that sex matters is worthy of respectful examination.²

Her resolve to keep thinking and writing on the topic was strengthened when she began to receive emails from academics around the country saying that they shared her concern but were scared to say anything. As one wrote:

“I really don’t have a settled view on any of the many issues here, but the lack of conversation and the hounding and bullying of anyone who expresses a thought (not even opinion!) that isn’t popular… all that is depressing and distressing. Predictably enough, I won’t be saying any of that in a public post, because I’m a precariously employed person and a lot of folk who might make significant decisions about my future career prospects have very strong opinions. A little cowardly, but also prudent, sadly.”³

University commits to Stonewall scheme

In June 2018 Tickell launched a new equality, diversity and inclusion strategy,⁴ which included the goal of getting Sussex University into the Stonewall “Top 100” and securing Advance HE’s Athena Swan⁵ status across the university by 2025. The university began preparing to submit its first application to the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index, and reported that it had “started work with Stonewall and the LGBT+ Staff Network by reviewing relevant policies to ensure they are LGBT inclusive”.⁶

Stonewall and Advance HE were not simply promoting freedom from unlawful discrimination and harassment for trans people: they were seeking to stamp out “transphobia” from academic institutions, which Stonewall defined as “the fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including the denial/refusal to accept their gender identity”. 

This attempt to establish denial of the idea of gender identity as prohibited, hateful speech put them on a direct collision course with other people’s rights.

Debate on gender self-ID

On 3rd July 2018 Theresa May’s government opened a 16-week consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act “to make it easier for transgender people to change their legal gender on their birth certificate”.⁷ There could be little doubt that the intention was to press ahead with self-ID. Announcing the consultation in Parliament, minister Penny Mordaunt said: “Trans women are women. Trans men are men. And that is the starting point for the GRA consultation. And it will be its finishing point too.”⁸

Stock kept on being relentlessly reasonable in questioning this proposal and encouraging others to engage. On 5th July 2018 she gave an interview to Brighton newspaper The Argus.⁹ On 6th July 2018 The Economist published an article by her alongside viewpoints from all sides of the debate.¹⁰ On 16th July she spoke at a Woman’s Place UK meeting in Brighton.

In this talk she described a climate of fear in academia and named Stonewall as a cause: 

“By ‘trans activists’ I mean: organisations like Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, and so on: socially prominent, politically powerful, and rich. They have a simplified core political message. They aggressively push the mantra ‘trans women are women’, by which they apparently mean ‘literally women, in every possible sense’, and they promote self-ID.”¹¹

The bill was not long in coming. Stock drew the ire of Pink News,¹² students organised Facebook groups against her,¹³ and there was a protest on campus at the launch of the university’s strategic framework with placards naming her.

By 13th July 2018 Tickell was prompted to ask “those with different views and understandings to please show kindness to each other.”¹⁴

In September The Times carried a story about a Facebook group in which transactivist academics compiled a list of gender-critical colleagues and discussed how to oust them from their jobs by filing complaints. Members of the group claimed that Stock’s presence made the philosophy department at Sussex an “unsafe environment”.¹⁵

On 1st October 2018 The Conversation published an article by Stock.¹⁶ On 10th October she spoke at a Woman’s Place UK meeting at the House of Lords and highlighted the problem with Stonewall’s definition of transphobia.

“That makes anyone who denies that a transwoman is a woman, for whatever reason, transphobic — far outstripping what any reasonable law would prohibit.”¹⁷

On 16th October a group of gender-critical academics wrote a letter to The Guardian. Stock was the lead signatory.

“Many of our universities have close links with trans advocacy organisations who provide “training” of academics and management, and who, it is reasonable to suppose, influence university policy through these links. Definitions used by these organisations of what counts as “transphobic” can be dangerously all-encompassing and go well beyond what a reasonable law would describe. They would not withstand academic analysis, and yet their effect is to curtail academic freedom and facilitate the censoring of academic work.”¹⁸

University adopts hurried policy

One of the things that wins an institution points in the Stonewall Index is marking special days and weeks in the calendar. Transgender Awareness Week was 12th to 18th November 2018, followed by Transgender Day of Remembrance on 20th November.

In a message posted on 8th November, an anonymous administrator of the ‘Sussex Philosophy Students in Solidarity with Trans Students’ Facebook group boasted that “some of us are trying to hold people in positions of authority accountable” for Stock’s views.

On 12th November, it was proposed to the university that it adopt a Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement in time to announce it on Trans Day of Remembrance. Sussex University later told Stonewall that the process that resulted in this proposal was led by “the confidential membership of the Trans and Nonbinary Staff Network” and “its Chair who reports suggestions directly to the EDI unit”.¹⁹ 

A draft was presented to the university’s executive group the following day. It was based on a template from the Equality Challenge Unit (now called Advance HE) and included expansive provisions against “transphobia”, exactly what Stock had been warning about.²⁰

The senior decision-makers who made up the executive group thought the policy was insufficiently well developed and asked for it to be sent to the EDI committee before returning for more detailed discussion. They told the promoter of the policy: 

“If you feel we need to make a statement next Tuesday, this should be along the lines of ‘the University is supporting Trans Awareness Week and has committed to starting a conversation around the development of its Trans Equality Policy Statement’.” 

But the following day the executive group changed its mind. 

Instead of starting a conversation about what should be in a trans equality policy (which might have included Stock and others who shared her concerns), the group agreed to adopt the policy it had rejected the day before. 

This decision was taken at a meeting with a single agenda item. No separate minute was recorded.

It is not clear who or what brought about this handbrake turn, but it appears likely that whatever pressure the executive group was under came from people who wanted to send a clear signal that views like those expressed by Stock would not be tolerated. 

The Trans and Non Binary Equality Policy Statement agreed on in 2018 is a little over a page long. It includes the following statements:

• The curriculum shall not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people, and any materials within relevant courses and modules will positively represent trans people and trans lives.
• Transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying (name-calling/ derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures.
• Transphobic propaganda, in the form of written materials, graffiti, music or speeches, will not be tolerated. We undertake to remove any such propaganda whenever it appears on the premises.²¹

Culture of fear

Stock has said that because of the policy, she was afraid to include the issue in her academic work. She said she:

“tried to raise the matter with superiors but to no avail… Over time, my teaching about sex and gender in feminist philosophy grew increasingly cautious, and most of my criticism of the sudden sanctification of gender identity took place elsewhere.”²²

Meanwhile the university ploughed on with trying to climb the Stonewall ladder. In June 2020 it published an action plan based on feedback from Stonewall and “in consultation with the LGBTQ+ Staff Network and the Trans and non-Binary Staff Network”. It told Stonewall that the university’s equality analysis process:

“ensures that policies are developed in discussion with employees with protected characteristics, guaranteeing that actual consultation takes place and that the voices of those affected by policies are heard early in the process of development. For example, the EDI unit sent the Guidance on Transitioning At Work draft document to the Trans and Nonbinary Staff Network for development.”²³

No one else’s views seem to have mattered.

It pledged to engage leadership at the highest level and to publish the annual messages of “commitment to LGBT+ inclusion”.

In 2020 the university signed up to a public “trans rights are human rights” campaign led by Stonewall,²⁴ supporting its political call for gender self-ID. In April 2021 the university established an LGBT+ Equality and Inclusion Self-Assessment Team to develop and oversee the delivery of an LGBT+ Equality and Inclusion Action Plan using the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index to “identify where further action is needed”. It said that it would arrange listening sessions “to hear the voices of LGBTQI+ staff and allies”.²⁵

Stock, a lesbian who disagreed with Stonewall, faced social isolation, investigations, public letters with mass signatures solicited online and an internal email campaign.

In May 2021 the Reindorf Review commissioned by Essex University was published. It exposed how accusations of transphobia are deployed to curtail academic freedom, and highlighted unlawful university policies developed through processes captured by internal and external lobby groups, and the culture of fear experienced by staff and students who disagree with gender-identity ideology.

In June 2021 the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that gender-critical beliefs were “worthy of respect in a democratic society” and protected by the Equality Act.

But the campaign against Stock intensified, and the university’s response continued to be inadequate. She filed a complaint to the university for its failure to support her.

According to a report in The Times, at the beginning of the new academic year in 2021 a student started “dropping into Whatsapp groups” and inviting others to get involved in a campaign to oust Stock. Around 15 students formed the group “Anti Terf Sussex” and began planning “Anti Stock Action”.²⁶

On 7th October they let off flares and pasted up posters around the university demanding that Stock be sacked.

The posters accused Stock of “transphobia” and of making students unsafe, and demanded that she be fired. 

Finally, on 8th October, the vice-chancellor went on the BBC’s Today programme to defend the “untrammelled right [of his academic staff] to say and believe what they think.”²⁷ 

It was too little, too late.

On Saturday 16th October nearly 100 people took over an open day at the University of Sussex to protest against her employment.²⁸ They yelled slogans including “Stock out!”, “Get Kathleen off our campus!” and “No Terfs here!”²⁹

The university released a statement saying: “Over the past two weeks, the University of Sussex has vigorously and unequivocally defended Professor Kathleen Stock’s right to exercise her academic freedom and lawful freedom of speech.”³⁰

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, commented.³¹ Several open letters of support were organised: one by philosophers,³² one by legal academics³³ and one by the new organisation Sex Matters.³⁴

The OfS contacted the university on 22nd October 2021 seeking further information.

Stock went off sick because of the intimidation, and then resigned.³⁵

In a statement in the House of Lords on 16th November the education minister said that she had been informed by the Office for Students (OfS) that it had opened an investigation into whether the University of Sussex has met its obligations on academic freedom and freedom of speech.³⁶ 

OfS finds Sussex University has breached higher-education regulations

Three and a half years later the OfS has released its findings and fined Sussex University £585,000.³⁷

It found that the university had been breaching Conditions E1 and E2 of the OfS’s regulatory framework by adopting the trans and non-binary equality policy, and in the state of its decision-making.³⁸

Condition E1 protects academic freedom and freedom of speech.

“Academic staff at an English higher education provider have freedom within the law: 

• to question and test received wisdom; and 
• to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at the provider. 

The governing body takes such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured within the provider.”

The OfS found that the Trans and Non Binary Equality Policy Statement based on the Advance HE template resulted in the restriction of lawful speech, including in course materials and curricula, and created a wider chilling effect leading to self-censorship.

Condition E2 requires that:

“The provider must have in place adequate and effective management and governance arrangements to: 

 (i) Operate in accordance with its governing documents.”

The OfS report describes the rushed process by which the policy was adopted during that week in 2018. It also found that:

• The Prevent Steering Group approved and adopted the 2021 version of the university’s Freedom of Speech Code of Practice despite that group not having delegated authority to do so. 
• The 2023 version of the External Speakers’ Procedure was approved by the university’s executive group despite that group not having delegated authority to do so. 
• The executive group also approved the 2022 and 2023 versions of the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement, despite that group not having delegated authority to do so. 

The OfS says this meant that: 

“Decisions were made by individuals or groups that had not been identified by the university as appropriate decision-makers and there is a risk that this may have led to decision-making of a degraded quality, and as a result, decisions may not have been made in the best interests of students and staff, and in accordance with the university’s legal and regulatory obligations.” 

The baseline penalty for these breaches, aggravated by the fact that they were longstanding and not reported, was over £3.6 million. This was reduced to £585,000 to reflect that this was the first time the OfS has found breaches by a university in relation to freedom of speech and academic freedom.

The OfS also said that although it does not come within the area it regulates, the university may not have complied with its legal duties relating to freedom of speech under Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986; Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and the Equality Act 2010 in relation to indirect discrimination and the public-sector equality duty. 

Alison Johns, Chief Executive of Advance HE, has now written to VCs of member universities acknowledging that “certain policy statements cited in the findings originated, in part, from a template developed by the Equality Challenge Unit”. She says that the template does not reflect the institution’s current approach or guidance on free speech, protected beliefs and good relations, and encourages members to review their trans inclusion policies and web pages and remove “any legacy language” cited by the OfS.³⁹

Why didn’t Sussex stop?

Why was Sussex so unwilling to drop the faulty policy it had adopted so rashly and start again, involving a wider range of stakeholders, recognising that other people had an interest, and taking legal advice with a view to protecting people with all protected characteristics equally in compliance with the law? 

The answer seems to be that on this subject senior managers were exerting no leadership, and the only focused goal was gaining Stonewall 100 status by 2025.

At the end of 2019 the EDI deputy pro-vice-chancellor who had led on the initial strategy left and the university went through three interim appointments over the next three years. 

In June 2021 Tickell announced his intention to step down as vice-chancellor. He moved on to be vice-chancellor of Birmingham University. 

In October 2021 Sussex hired David Ruebain as its new pro-vice-chancellor of culture, equality and inclusion. The role was elevated to the executive group at the highest level of the institution. Earlier in his career Ruebain had been CEO of the ECU (the organisation where Sussex University’s bad policy had originated).⁴⁰

Professor Sasha Roseneil started her tenure as vice-chancellor at the beginning of August 2022. 

None of these people was willing to demonstrate the leadership and judgement they were paid for, and which were needed to take on and face down the “confidential trans network”. The treatment meted out to Stock, Falkner⁴¹ and JK Rowling made clear what would happen if they did. 

On 16th August 2022 the university released a slightly updated version of the policy.

• The requirement to represent trans people and trans lives positively in modules and courses was removed.
• The stereotyping statement was amended to read: “The curriculum shall not rely on or seek to reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people.”

It added the words “Approved by the University Executive Group”.⁴²

On 17th January 2023 there were further updates:

• A safeguard was added stating that “nothing in this Policy Statement should be taken to justify sanctioning academic staff for questioning or testing received wisdom or putting forward new ideas including controversial or unpopular opinions within the law and nor should this Policy Statement be taken to justify disproportionate restrictions on freedom of speech.”
• The provision on “transphobic propaganda” was removed and incorporated as “any abusive, bullying or harassing material” under the provision on transphobic abuse, harassment and bullying.
• A definition of “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying” was added, saying that it “mean[s] unwanted behaviours and communications that could reasonably be expected to cause distress or fear among trans people”.⁴³

A further updated version was released in May 2024.⁴⁴ The OfS considered the 2022 and 2023 versions and said that while there were improvements, the policies continued to prohibit lawful speech and have a chilling effect (it has not yet considered the 2024 version). 

The changes to the section on “transphobic propaganda” and “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying” show the confused genesis and evolution of the policy. 

Provisions against “transphobic propaganda”: how Sussex University’s policy evolved

2018 and 2022 policies say “transphobic propaganda” will be removed:

Transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying (name-calling/derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures.

Transphobic propaganda, in the form of written materials, graffiti, music or speeches, will not be tolerated. We undertake to remove any such propaganda whenever it appears on the premises.

In 2023 this is replaced by “any [transphobic] abusive, bullying or harassing material”:

Transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying* (e.g. name-calling/derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures. Any abusive, bullying, or harassing material (e.g. written materials, graffiti or recordings) will be removed from University premises.

* We use the term “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying” to mean unwanted behaviours and communications that could reasonably be expected to cause distress or fear among trans people.

In 2024 this is linked to the test for criminal harassment:

Transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying* (e.g. name-calling/derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures. After consideration of its form and contents, material (e.g. written materials, graffiti or recordings) that is found objectively to be abusive, bullying, or harassing will be removed from University premises.

* We use the term “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying” to mean unwanted behaviours and communications that could reasonably be expected to cause distress or fear among trans people. This definition is objective and replicates the definition in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as set out in the Cod [sic] for Crown Prosecutors.
(Emphasis added)

Sussex University’s responsibility is to protect its students and staff from unlawful harassment related to protected characteristics in the Equality Act, not criminal harassment under the Harassment Act 1997 (which would be a police matter). 

Sussex University digs in

Roseneil has not taken the news of the OfS finding well. She has doubled down on defending the policy and the university’s decision-making, accusing the OfS of “decreeing libertarian free-speech absolutism as the fundamental principle for UK universities” and “perpetuating the culture wars”. She says the university will appeal against the fine and seek a judicial review of the decision. 

She describes the policy statement as no big deal because she says it does not have the status of being a “governing document” of the university:

“This is a really small statement, of which we have many dozens, if not hundreds, of similar policies and statements. Whereas the governing documents of the university are its charter and statutes and regulations.”⁴⁵

The idea that this was “a really small statement” is inconsistent with what Sussex University has been saying for the past five years.

The university started this process in 2018, promising to “take bold action” under the guidance of its trans and non-binary network group and Stonewall. This is exactly what it did, year after year. The people in charge of this were senior and paid good money. Each year they reported to the Council, and the Council agreed to the goal of achieving Stonewall status. 

In May 2024 the university celebrated reaching its goal of being ranked 30th in the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index Top 100.⁴⁶ As it completed its way up the ladder towards that goal, every year it assured Stonewall that the policy was supported at the highest level and that the university took a “zero tolerance” approach to “transphobia”. That blinkered determination to prioritise the narrow demands of ideological lobbyists within and outside the university led it to overlook its duty to prevent harassment of staff who dissented from that ideological position, and to uphold academic freedom and free speech on campus for everyone.

1. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘Academic philosophy and the UK Gender Recognition Act’. @kathleenstock blog (archived).[↩]
2. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘What I believe about sex and gender (and what I don’t)’. @kathleenstock blog (archived).[↩]
3. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘Anonymised responses from other academics to my articles on sex, gender, and philosophy’. @kathleenstock blog (archived).[↩]
4. University Of Sussex (2018). Inclusive Sussex: equality, diversity and inclusion strategy 2018–2025.[↩]
5. John Armstrong and Allice Sullivan (2024). ‘A critical analysis of Athena Swan as a policy-scoring scheme’. British Educational Research Journal, volume 51, issue 1.[↩]
6. University of Sussex (2018). Equality, diversity and inclusion annual report to council 2017/18.[↩]
7. UK Government (2018). ‘Government announces plans to reform process of changing legal gender’. Press release, 3rd July 2018.[↩]
8. UK Parliament (2018). ‘Commons: 3 July 2018 (Volume 644)’. Hansard.[↩]
9. Jody Doherty-Cove (2018). ‘“Trans women are still males with male genitalia” – university lecturer airs controversial views. The Argus.[↩]
10. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘Changing the concept of “woman” will cause unintended harms’. The Economist.[↩]
11. Kathleen Stock (2018) ‘A Woman’s Place is Turning the Tide’. Woman’s Place UK.[↩]
12. Ella Braidwood (2018). ‘University lecturer criticised after declaring “trans women are still males with male genitalia”’. Pink News.[↩]
13. Facebook page: ‘Sussex Philosophy Students in Solidarity with Trans Students’.[↩]
14. Adam Tickell (2018). ‘A message from the Vice-Chancellor – living our values’. University of Sussex website.[↩]
15. Lucy Bannerman (2018). ‘Trans Goldsmiths lecturer Natacha Kennedy behind smear campaign against academics’. The Times.[↩]
16. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘Why self-identification should not legally make you a woman’. The Conversation.[↩]
17. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘Women’s Place talk: full text House of Lords Oct 10th 2018’. @kathleenstock blog (archived).[↩]
18. Kathleen Stock et al (2018). ‘Academics are being harassed over their research into transgender issues’. Letter to The Guardian, 16th October 2018.[↩]
19. Stewart (2022). ‘Information about Stonewall Workplace Equality Index (WEI)’. What Do They Know.[↩]
20. Equality Challenge Unit (2016). Trans equality policy statement.[↩]
21. University of Sussex (2018). Trans and Non Binary Equality Policy Statement.[↩]
22. Kathleen Stock (2025). ‘Fortunes are changing in the culture war Sussex University should move on’. UnHerd.[↩]
23. University of Sussex (2020). Stonewall Workplace Equality Index Action Plan.[↩]
24. Stonewall (2020). ‘Over 100 major companies join together to say trans rights are human rights’.[↩]
25. University of Sussex (2021). Equality, diversity and inclusion annual report to council 2020/21.[↩]
26. Tom Ball (2021). ‘Inside the “cloak and dagger” campaign against Kathleen Stock’. The Times.[↩]
27. Tortoise (2021). ‘The Kathleen Stock case is about much more than trans rights’.[↩]
28. Harry Lambert (2021). ‘Kathleen Stock and Sussex University: the war over academic freedom’. The New Statesman.[↩]
29. Sam Baker and Jacob Thorburn (2021). ‘Masked mob demand trans row professor is sacked in campus protest after defending anonymous crusade because “they don’t want to be abused online”’. Mail Online.[↩]
30. University of Sussex (2021). Post on Twitter @SussexUni, 21st October 2021.[↩]
31. Kishwer Falkner (2021). Post on Twitter @EHRCChair, 10th October 2021.[↩]
32. UK philosophers (2021). Open letter of solidarity with the University of Sussex.[↩]
33. Legal academics (2021). Open Letter to Sussex University from legal academics.[↩]
34. Sex Matters (2021). ‘Academics write to the EHRC’.[↩]
35. Richard Adams (2021). ‘Sussex professor resigns after transgender rights row’. The Guardian.[↩]
36. UK Parliament (2021). ‘Professor Kathleen Stock: Resignation (Volume 816: debated on Tuesday 16 November 2021)’. Hansard.[↩]
37. Office for Students (2025). ‘Regulatory case report for University of Sussex: OfS decisions relating to breaches of conditions E1 and E2 and the imposition of monetary penalties’.[↩]
38. Office for Students (2022). Securing student success: Regulatory framework for higher education in England.[↩]
39. Alison Johns (2025). Letter from Advance HE to university vice-chancellors, 31st March 2025.[↩]
40. David Ruebain (accessed March 2025). Profile on LinkedIn.[↩]
41. Sex Matters (2024). ‘Timeline of efforts to sabotage the EHRC’s work to protect everyone’s rights’.[↩]
42.  University of Sussex (2022). Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement.[↩]
43. University of Sussex (2023). Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement.[↩]
44. University of Sussex (2024). Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement.
    [↩]
45. Richard Adams (2025). ‘University of Sussex taking legal action over £585,000 free speech fine’. The Guardian.[↩]
46. University of Sussex (2024). ‘University of Sussex named 30th in Stonewall’s Top 100 Employer 2024 list’.[↩]