Reform UK defunding threat sparks free speech warning

An organisation promoting free speech and academic freedom has criticised senior Reform UK figures after a row which saw them threaten to defund Bangor University.

Alumni for Free Speech (AFFS) said the episode highlighted both the risks of political rhetoric targeting university funding and the rapid spread of what it described as legally flawed claims.

The intervention follows controversy surrounding a decision by Bangor University’s Debating and Political Society not to host representatives from Reform UK.

Earlier this month, Reform UK MP Sarah Pochin and party adviser Jack Anderton contacted the student-led society offering to participate in a question-and-answer session with students.

The society declined the request, issuing a public statement on social media saying the decision was “in line with our values”, citing concerns about what it described as racism, transphobia and homophobia associated with some members of the party.

The refusal triggered criticism online, with some commentators alleging Bangor University had breached its legal duties on free speech.

However, in a detailed letter to the university’s Vice-Chancellor, AFFS challenged claims made by Reform UK figures and commentators.

The group wrote: “Some commentary from Reform UK officials, which was picked up uncritically in parts of the media, proceeded on the basis that the Society’s decision constituted ‘the worst breach’ of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 (‘HEFSA’). That is untenable…”

AFFS noted that the legislation cited in the backlash does not apply to Welsh universities in the same way as institutions in England.

“…the student-union duties inserted by HEFSA… apply only to students’ unions at ‘registered higher education providers’… and the University is not such a registered provider.”

The letter also addressed separate claims invoking section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.

“Other claims from Reform UK’s Head of Policy (Zia Yusuf) described the episode as a ‘serious breach’. On the facts as publicly reported, however, that characterisation is difficult to sustain.”

AFFS said the Bangor episode illustrated how legal arguments can become distorted during fast-moving public controversies.

“A striking feature of the ensuing commentary was the speed with which statutory provisions were invoked in soundbite form… notwithstanding that the underlying legal position is more nuanced.”

The organisation warned that once statutory language becomes embedded in political and media narratives, allegations can acquire “an appearance of gravitas and credibility that is difficult to unwind.”

Distanced

Bangor University publicly distanced itself from the student society’s statement, emphasising that societies operate independently through the Students’ Union.

A university spokesperson said: “The social media post was issued by a student society and not by Bangor University. Student societies are created and run by students through the independent Students’ Union. Bangor University remains politically neutral and supports freedom of speech within the law.”

The controversy intensified after Reform UK’s head of policy, Zia Yusuf, criticised the university on social media, suggesting that institutions engaging in what he termed “industrial scale indoctrination” could face consequences under a future Reform government.

His remarks referenced Bangor University’s public funding and questioned why taxpayers should support an institution where a student society had declined to host a sitting MP.

AFFS said such disputes underline the need for universities not only to comply with free speech duties but to communicate their legal position clearly when challenged.

“In that environment, it is not sufficient for an institution merely to be confident that it is acting within the law. It must also be able to demonstrate, and communicate, a clear and operational compliance posture…”

Practical measures

The letter urged Bangor University to consider practical measures, including clearer governance structures, defined escalation pathways, closer coordination with communications teams, and the designation of a named free speech lead.

AFFS also suggested the university consider adopting a formal policy of institutional neutrality, arguing that such policies can reduce attribution risks and perceptions of institutional partiality.