Academics For Academic Freedom

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search

<youtube size="medium" align="right" caption="Dennis Hayes on Academic Freedom">slfcBbS2dsk</Youtube>

Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF) is a group of academics led by Dennis Hayes who support the creation of laws to ensure that academics are free to 'question and test received wisdom, and to put forward unpopular opinions'. They argue that this freedom should be protected by law 'both inside and outside the classroom', whether or not it was part of their area of academic expertise and 'whether or not these (issues) were deemed offensive'.[1]. The group is associated with the libertarian anti-environmental LM network. AFAF was launched in late 2006 and it has received steady media coverage since mid 2007.[2][3] Two of its UK speakers, Stuart Derbyshire and Dennis Hayes have written for other LM network entities. Early signatories to its statement included a high proportion of associates of the LM network. For example, at least five of the first ten and nineteen of the first sixty five signatories were associates.[4]

LM network resources

Statement of Principles

The AFAF statement on academic freedom is as follows:

We, the undersigned, believe the following two principles to be the foundation of academic freedom:
(1) that academics, both inside and outside the classroom, have unrestricted liberty to question and test received wisdom and to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions, whether or not these are deemed offensive.
(2) that academic institutions have no right to curb the exercise of this freedom by members of their staff, or to use it as grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal.[5]


In a letter to the THES, Andrew Morgan described the campaign as 'embarrassingly silly and profoundly un-academic'. He argued that:

How many academics would award a PhD if it became evident during the viva, if not before, that the thesis presented represented the opinions of someone who had not studied the area, had not considered the relevant research or at any time subjected their findings to any form of peer review? One would hope not many.
For the same reason I would hope that most academics refused to sign the statement produced by Academics for Academic Freedom. The guiding assumption of the statement is that a degree in one subject, together with a job teaching or conducting research in that subject, should confer a special licence to respect and protection in the espousal of views and opinions on anything whatsoever (implying alongside it that this right should apply only to those called "academics").[6]

Morgan concluded by arguing 'To add a test of academic employment as the basis for free speech is to threaten open society and offers only the opportunity to march back boldly to a pre-renaissance age'.[7]

In 2010 Ann Mroz claimed that 'AFAF plays an important role in raising awareness, but it takes on only the few cases that suit its political agenda'.[8] Dennis Hayes responded by saying that 'What differentiates AFAF from other bodies, such as the University and College Union, is precisely the opposite: it supports any academic whose freedom is under attack, whether it agrees with what they say or not'.[9]

Constantine Sandis, a senior lecturer in philosophy at Oxford Brookes University and New York University in London criticises AFAF. He argues:

Suppose a history lecturer systematically maintains that the Second World War never happened or that the Crusades took place in 1986, and responds with coarse verbal abuse to anybody who dares to challenge her. It would be plain silly to suggest that her union and/or employer ought to protect her right to do so in the name of free speech.
Common sense dictates that we have no right to treat any and all situations as one of the platforms on which we may express ourselves freely. In denying this, AFAF perverts our ordinary use of the expression 'freedom of speech' and engages in a form of doublespeak that masks the fact that handing lecturers the right to misinform is tantamount to giving them a green light to brainwash.

Sandis continues by arguing that:

Perhaps at some level even AFAF recognises that some constraints are needed. Remarkably, for an organisation whose founder, Dennis Hayes, condones "unimpeded inquiry and expression" ("Academic freedom means free speech and no 'buts'", The Free Society, 4 March 2008) and claims that children should be subjected to their teachers' views "no matter how offensive" ("Let extremists have their say in class", Times Educational Supplement, 26 September 2008), AFAF does not permit people to comment on its website without first signing its Statement of Academic Freedom...If this is not a restriction of academics' liberties, I don't know what is.[10]

Roger Kline, head of equality at the University College Union, raises some concerns with the position taken by AFAF. He says:

'We should distinguish between the crucial right of an academic to question and test received wisdom and any suggestion that this is the same as an unlimited right of a university academic to express, for example, anti-Semitic, homophobic or misogynist abuse where they were using a position of authority to bully students or staff, or potentially breach the duty of care that universities have towards students or staff'.[11]

Legal Debate

According to a report in the Times Higher Educational Supplement AFAF hope that legal cover should be granted to academics in the respect of academic freedom.[12] However the Education Reform Act of 1988 covers the right to academic freedom of expression. In section 202, Paragraph 2(a), the act states that University Commissioners must regard the need:

'to ensure that academic staff 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 their institutions'.[13]

In 2010 Tim Birtwistle, visiting Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, said it was a problem that 'nobody can really define an acceptable definition of academic freedom'. He said he disagreed with the decision made by Academics for Academic Freedom to omit from its own definition a reference to freedom 'within the law', which is included in Section 202 of the Education Act 1988. He called on the Universities UK working group on academic freedom, which met for the first time in February, to press for Section 202 to be redrafted to define the full meaning of 'within the law'. He added that stringent tests needed to be set up to ensure that future legislation would not have unforeseen deleterious consequences for academic freedom.

The definition of academic freedom given by Tim Birtwistle is 'the freedom to enquire, research and find things out, the freedom to say: 'Wow, we didn't know this', but not unfettered freedom to say anything about anything to anybody'. He is critical of the stance taken by AFAF, arguing that 'I'm not sure our society wants that level of total freedom.'[14]


The roots of AFAF lay in the controversy surrounding Frank Ellis at Leeds University. In the summer of 2006, Ellis who taught Russian suggested that there was a link between ethnicity and intelligence. Ellis supported the work of Richard Hernnstein and Charles Murray and argued that there was a 'persistent gap' in IQ levels between black people and white people. Ellis was suspended from the university but argued that calling him a racist was 'an attempt to close down any discussion' and an attack on his freedom of speech.[15]

The Ellis case was to be described as 'the classic case study of the tensions between the law and university regulations on one hand, and unfettered freedom of expression and the rights of vulnerable minorities on the other'. Many people argued at the time that a university should be above censorship and capable of rebutting false doctrines and it was following this debate that AFAF emerged.[16]

When the AFAF group first began to receive media attention in December 2006, some reports described them as a body created to counter the culture of 'political correctness gone mad', the group were quoted as supporting the right for academics to be given 'unrestricted liberty to be offensive without fear of sanction'.[17]

In March 2007 students at Oxford University campaigned against Oxford professor David Coleman because he had helped to found MigrationWatch. Dennis Hayes condemned the students on behalf of AFAF arguing that 'Students who once fought for challenging the state on things like war are now fighting against free speech'.[18]

Case Studies

Frank Ellis and Leeds University

Dr. Frank Ellis was working as a tutor of Russian at Leeds University in 2006 when he was involved in a controversy over his views on ethnicity and intelligence. Ellis argued that black people have a lower average IQ than white people. Students protested against his views and created a petition which received over 500 signatures all agreeing that Ellis should be sacked. Ellis had cited Richard Hernnstein and Charles Murray's Bell Curve theory which concludes that ethnicity can play a part in determining IQ levels.[19]

Ellis argued that he became interested in the issue of censoring sensitive debates through his studies of the media under Soviet and post-Soviet regimes, he attacked critics who had branded his views racist by describing tham as 'an attempt to close down any discussion' and an attack on his freedom of speech. He argued that:

'These days a racist is anything you don't like - it's a hate word. I have no strong feelings towards black people either way.'

Ellis took early retirement after he was suspended from Leeds University for his comments. According to The Guardian, he had also argued that 'women did not have the same intellectual capacity as men'.[20] In 2010 Ellis criticised the expansion of higher education and its effect on academic freedom at Leeds University:

Higher education is now expected to be inclusive which means that it must host a miscellany of pseudo-intellectual misfits – gender studies and black studies are two obvious examples - which are hostile to notions of intellectual rigour, objective truth, evidence and, above all, as this author can personally attest, to free speech and academic freedom. Gender studies and black studies have no place in a university: they are little more than grievance factories; they should be targeted for immediate closure. Vice-chancellors, university secretaries, the heads of departments and schools, who do not defend the essentials of a university for reasons of ideological and financial expediency, or who fail out of plain cowardice to confront the charlatans, cease to preside over a university.[21]

It was following the Ellis case at Leeds University that AFAF was set up.

David Coleman and Oxford University

Although AFAF were set up following the Ellis case at Leeds University, they were up and running in 2007 when a controversy arose surrounding professor David Coleman's founding of MigrationWatch.[22] Coleman is a professor of demography at Oxford University and helped set up MigrationWatch in 2001. Oxford Student Action for Refugees contacted the vice-chancellor of Oxford University urging that he should 'consider the suitability of Coleman's continued tenure as a professor of the university'. The motion was supported by a petition signed by students.[23]

Coleman reacted to the complaint by arguing that:

'it is a shameful attempt of the most intolerant and totalitarian kind to suppress the freedom of analysis and informed comment that it is the function of universities to cherish. I am ashamed that Oxford students should behave this way. It is the signatories who will bring the university into disrepute and it they who should reconsider their membership of this university'.[24]

Anti-racism campaigner Teresa Hayter has refused to share a platform with Coleman in the past and she lent her support to the petition arguing that she did not believe Coleman should be a professor at Oxford.[25] The students were also complaining about Coleman's affiliation with the Galton Institute (formerly the Eugenics Society), however Coleman dismissed this criticism arguing that:

'There are aspects of eugenics that are regularly practised by the medical profession today, for example abortion of foetuses that show signs of severe disability. Other aspects are deplorable.'[26]

Teresa Hayter said that she refused to share a platform with Coleman in the past because of his links to the Galton Institute. She said:

'I objected to Prof. Coleman because of his connection with eugenics. He is against immigration to this country and for eugenics. The implication is that he is a racist. I have not talked to him about this because he is not willing to talk about his connection to eugenics.'[27]

Coleman's case drew the support of AFAF. Dennis Hayes argued that 'Students who once fought for challenging the state on things like war are now fighting against free speech. It comes to something when students would rather see an academic sacked than stand up and debate these issues with him'.[28]

Canterbury Christ Church University and Religion

In 2007 Canterbury Christ Church University faced criticism for putting restrictions on academic freedom. Canterbury Christ Church University is exempt from Section 202 of the Education Reform Act 1988 because it does not apply to post-1992 Universities. Academic freedom was qualified at the institution by the caveat that academic freedom does 'not undermine the institution's ethos as a Church of England college or its code of conduct'.[29] Criticising the University's position, AFAF founder Dennis Hayes argued that:

'Any institution that restricts academic freedom may be many things, but it is not a university. The university is defined by freedom to debate and freedom to research, and the failure to support academic freedom turns the university into nothing more than a corporate body pursuing its business, however ethical or worthy its aims,'.[30]

Hayes argued that 'there is no formal restriction on particular subjects - such as gay studies - but you never know what will be deemed inappropriate'.[31]

Hayes and AFAF were responding to media coverage in February 2007 over the controversial decision that Canterbury Christ Church University had made to 'ban civil partnership ceremonies on campus'.[32] The university reversed its policy and decided to allow civil partnership ceremonies in March 2007, just one month after the original controversy was publicised.[33]

Manchester University's Equality and Diversity Guidance

In March 2007 Manchester University issued equality and diversity guidance Stating:

'There is also a need to balance academic freedom with the recognition that some issues are extremely contentious, even if they are not unlawful. 'Academic staff should be mindful of issues that may be controversial, and should approach debate around these areas with care and consideration. For one thing, students who are busy reacting emotionally to a contentious issue may be less likely to engage in the effective learning you intend.'[34]

Dennis Hayes argued on behalf of AFAF that 'this is how academic freedom gets quietly shut down.'[35]

University of East Anglia and the 'No Platform' Policy

In October 2007 an offshoot of AFAF, called Student Academics for Academic Freedom created a motion to overturn the NUS policy of 'no platform for fascists'. The motion was carried and Richard Reynolds, the student who set the group up argued that 'I am delighted that the motion was passed. We should be taking racists on in debate rather than trying to hush them up', he described the view that ethnic minority and gay students needed to be protected from those with racist and homophobic views as 'patronising'.[36]

Dennis Hayes welcomed the motion arguing that 'It represents a sea change in the attitudes of students unions'. NUS president Gemma Tumelty said of the decision that 'Our primary concern is the safety of our members, many of whom are foreign nationals or from black and ethnic minority communities. The NUS believes the right to freedom of expression must not be separated from, or take precedence over, the right to freedom from oppression'.[37]

Battle of Ideas Festival

The 2007 Battle of Ideas festival was organised by the Institute of Ideas.[38] One of the topics at the 2007 festival was the threat to academic free speech. Richard Reynolds of Student Academics for Academic Freedom was at the festival where he argued that 'Castrated academics are boring' and criticised a student who had one of the few dissenting voices during the debate. The student had argued that he found the content of a novel he was studying offensive, Reynolds argued that the student had 'no right not to be offended,' and that taking offence to the concept of a novel was 'a deeply regressive concept.'[39]

John Fitzpatrick, a senior lecturer at Kent Law School, argued that 'to speak out against the environmental agenda is seen as a badge of courage.' Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at Kent University, criticised the censorship of academic arguing that 'We're not in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany.' Steve Fuller, professor of sociology at Warwick University, argued that one of academia's roles is to teach students how debate can lead to enlightenment. Expertise in a subject is irrelevant; what matters is the ability to frame an argument.[40]

The Moral Cowardice of the Science Museum

In November 2007 Richard Reynolds of Student Academics for Academic Freedom argued that the Science Museum had displayed 'total moral cowardice' for cancelling a lecture by James Watson on the grounds that he had made comments that had 'gone beyond the point of acceptable debate'. Reynolds argued that:

Society relies on all of us, academics and students, on both an academic and a political level, to challenge orthodoxy to make progress. I have no doubt that racism, whether coming from Nazi ideology or perverted genetics, is wrong, but I for one would have enjoyed the opportunity to discuss this with a proponent, no matter how abhorrent his views.[41]

Extremism in the University

In November 2007, Prime Minister Gordon Brown argued that the Government would 'invite universities to lead a debate on how we can maintain academic freedom while ensuring that extremists can never stifle debate or impose their views (on others).'

Anthony Glees, the director of the Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies at Brunel University, argued that 'I expect that the new government guidance will stress the values shared by all the parties, such as democracy. The rumour is that it won't include the word Muslim.' adding 'The Government should deal with the problem properly and encourage universities to understand that it is in their own interests that it is addressed,'.

Dennis Hayes said on behalf of Academics for Academic Freedom, that: 'The existence of so-called extremists has been used to stifle debate, by people who feel that certain comments are so hard to accept that they shouldn't be heard.' Adding 'What Mr Brown is announcing is the beginning of a clampdown disguised as debate.'[42]

Nicholas Kollerstrom and University College London

In April 2008 astronomer Nicholas Kollerstrom was dismissed by University College London for his controversial views on the Holocaust. In an online article Kollerstrom had denied the extend of the holocaust and argued the the 2005 London 2005 tube bombings were perpetrated by 'western security agents' working for 'Zionist masters'.

UCL Dismissed Kollerstom arguing that 'The views expressed by Dr Kollerstrom are diametrically opposed to the aims, objectives and ethos of UCL, such that we wish to have absolutely no association with them,'.

Dennis Hayes, of Academics for Academic Freedom, argued that Dr Kollerstrom should not have been fired. He said 'No matter how absurd people's views are they should be allowed to express them. They should not be turned into martyrs,'.

Tom Hickey criticised Hayes for his position arguing that 'Holocaust denial is a justification of what happened,' he added 'None of the Holocaust deniers genuinely believe it didn't happen.'[43]

BNP Teaching Controversy

In November 2008 the membership list of the BNP was leaked to the press and on the list were details of the occupation of some of the members. The details of higher education were included on the list and this led to calls for a ban on BNP members in teaching positions. Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU), said that 'primacy of freedom of speech is fundamental', however adding that 'It is hard to see how institutions can reconcile their duty to promote good race relations with staff being members of the BNP. Institutions may therefore consider that it is inappropriate for BNP members to have teaching and/or pastoral care responsibilities, or other direct contact with students,'.

Dennis Hayes of Academics for Academic Freedom disputed this view arguing that it would constitute 'an improper restriction of a democratic right ... and a new stage in the attack on academic freedom'. He added 'These people have not said or done anything - they are being punished for existing'.[44]

AFAF on the academic boycott of Israel

In 2008 Dennis Hayes of Academics for Academic Freedom criticised a series of motions put forward by the UCU union in regards to the boycotting of Israeli academic institutions. Writing in Spiked Hayes argues that:

Getting individuals to refuse to give a lecture or attend a conference, to mark a dissertation, to reject a paper for a journal, are pointless feelgood activities and a pathetic shadow of what could be real solidarity or support. The boycotters, and often some of the less impressive opponents of the boycott, have not only harmed the development of any real solidarity movement - they have also seriously damaged the defence of academic freedom in Britain, in three ways.
First, the call for a boycott has allowed university vice-chancellors and government ministers to appear to be more concerned with the defence of academic freedom than a union that represents 117,000 lecturers; second, it has added to the political climate of banning and proscribing any ideas you find offensive or just consider to be false; third, and worst of all, it has taken away the unique status of academic freedom as the defining feature of the academy that must be defended, and made it just one more value in a trade-off of values.

He went on to argue that:

The position of UCU should be that all its members, their colleagues and students and their equivalents throughout the world are capable of reason, and people should not be censured, proscribed, banned or boycotted for their ideas but allowed to submit them to their peers and students for open, critical discussion.
The tragedy of the academic boycott campaign is that it is ultimately a boycott of the academy, of academic freedom, and the right of every individual to decide issues through rational debate.[45]

SOAS Tel Aviv Lecture Protest

In early 2009 the student union at the School of African and Oriental studies 'passed a motion demanding the cancellation of a lecture series celebrating Tel Aviv’s centenary'.[46] The motion was intended to:

put pressure on the Soas director and all relevant parties to cancel the series of lectures celebrating Tel Aviv centennial, as Tel Aviv represents a colonial city built on ethnic cleansing.

The UCU branch President at SOAS supported the motion arguing that:

A pro-Israeli propaganda exercise masquerading as an academic conference has no place in Soas at the best of times, but to hold a celebration of Tel Aviv as the Israeli war machine wreaks death and destruction on the Gaza ghetto is nothing short of sick.

Colin Shindler, professor of Israeli studies, helped to organise the lecture series. He argued that:

Any call for cancelling this series will be seen as not based on opposition to the centenary but on the participation of Israel academics. Academic institutions rightly do not suppress different narratives and opinions. He added that:
I have never called for the cancellation of a lecture at Soas, even if the views expressed were not to my liking – such as the participation of a Hezbollah representative in a recent conference or the talk given by the hijacker Leila Khaled in the past.

At the time of the protest over the lecture series the University College Union issued a statement on academic freedom, which read:

Higher and further education staff have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, expression, association and assembly. Staff must not be hindered or impeded in exercising their civil rights as citizens, including the right to contribute to social change through free expression of opinion on matters of public interest. We recognise that this may touch upon sensitive or controversial issues...academic freedom also comes with the responsibility to respect the democratic rights and freedoms of others.

Dennis Hayes criticised the statement on behalf of AFAF arguing that it ignored 'the politically correct censorship of the Left authoritarians in the union and a censorious climate in wider society', adding:

That is why it skirts around the issue of freedom of speech, the core of academic freedom, and just talks vaguely about the ‘freedom’ to teach and research, and the right to opine about management. But by making reference to the union rule that is used to deal with harassment, prejudice and unfair discrimination, the statement carries an implicit warning that ‘freedoms’ that the censors in the union do not approve of will not be tolerated.[47]

Nottingham University

In the wake of the Nottingham University case involving Rizwaan Sabir and Hicham Yezza (See Teaching About Terrorism: University of Nottingham). Dennis Hayes of AFAF took on Anthony Glees in a debate over academic freedom in Debating Matters competiton organised by the Institute of Ideas.[48] In the first round of the debate Hayes argued that:

One reason is that there is a strange alliance of the revolutionary left, the conservative right, the National Union of Students, the University and College Union, university administrators and cowardly academics whose first thought is to ban rather than debate with people who hold unacceptable views. They are happy to ‘turn them in’ to the authorities or seek to sack ‘extremists'. Hayes concluded by saying, It is probably easier now to find a member of al Qaeda on campus than a defender of academic freedom and freedom of speech'.[49]

On the Nottingham case Hayes argued that academics at The University of Nottingham were asked to apply censorship to their international politics programme reading lists. Of this practice he said 'The message was: you have to self-censor to make sure that nothing in the recommended literature encouraged terrorism. A tall order given the topic!'.[50]

Dylan Evans and University College Cork

In 2010 Dylan Evans, a lecturer in behavioural science at University College Cork, was accused of sexual harassment by a colleague when he showed her a paper from the journal PLoS ONE, titled 'Fellatio by fruit bats prolongs copulation time'. The university decided to impose a 'two-year period of monitoring and appraisal under the university's duty of respect and 'right to dignity' policy'.

Evans argued that the paper was 'a peer-reviewed scientific paper already extensively reported in the mass media' and that his punishment 'flies in the face of academic freedom'. Dennis Hayes spoke out on behalf of Academics for Academic Freedom arguing that 'The charge 'this offends me' allows university and college managers to institute non-academic responses and to charge staff with harassment or breaking their 'dignity at work' policy, as if an intellectual offence was the same as a physical offence. This allows them to pose as upholders of academic freedom while silencing academics.'[51]


Spiked | Institute of Ideas | Battle of Ideas | Student Academics for Academic Freedom

Statement Signatories

A partial list of LM associates who have signed the statement is set out below.

AFAF campaigns for the "Right to Offend" and opposes the No Platform for Racists and Fascists policy. [52]

Its campaigns are promoted in other LM entities such as the Battle of Ideas and Spiked.

An offshoot is Student Academics For Academic Freedom.


The Free Society


Website: AFAF
Facebook: AFAF


  • Dennis Hayes interview with Chris Green, 'I'd invite the BNP to a debate', The Independent, 19-June-2008
  • Dennis Hayes, Let extremists have their say in class, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 26-September-2008
  • Constantine Sandis, Free Speech Within Reason, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 21-January-2010


  1. Phil Baty, Scholars demand right to be offensive, Times Higher Education Supplement, 22-December-2006
  2. Phil Baty, Scholars demand right to be offensive, Times Higher Education Supplement, 22-December-2006
  3. "AFAF Media Coverage", AFAF website, accessed 31 Oct 2010
  4. Signatories 1-100 About Us, AFAF website, accessed 4 November 2010
  5. Dennis Hayes, Verbal brawling is just what the academy needs, Times Higher Education Supplement, 22-December-2006
  6. Andrew Morgan, Free speech, not just for academe, Times Higher Education Supplement, 12-January-2007
  7. Andrew Morgan, Free speech, not just for academe, Times Higher Education Supplement, 12-January-2007
  8. Ann Mroz, Rise up, freedom fighters, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 11-February-2010
  9. Dennis Hayes, Decade of success, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 25-February-2010
  10. Constantine Sandis, Free speech within reason, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 21-January-2010
  11. Phil Baty, Scholars demand right to be offensive, Times Higher Education Supplement, 22-December-2006
  12. Section: PG. 2. No: 1783, 'Make freedom to offend legal', The Times Higher Education Supplement, 2-March-2007
  13. Education Reform Act 1988, Section 202 Para 2a,, Accessed 24-February-2011
  14. Sarah Cunnane, 'Freedom to say anything to anyone' is not what we need, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 6-May-2010
  15. BBC News, Racism row lecturer is suspended, BBC News, 23-March-2006
  16. Opinion, Can Academics be Entirely Free?, Times Higher Education Supplement, 22-December-2006
  17. James Tout, Switch off the PC, Aberdeen Evening Express, 26-December-2006
  18. Graeme Paton, Students call for migrant watch don to be sacked, The Telegraph, 2-March-2007
  19. BBC News, Tutor defends 'racist' stance, BBC News, 8-March-2006
  20. Alexandra Smith, Lecturer at centre of race row takes early retirement, The Guardian, 12-July-2006
  21. Frank Ellis, A Curriculum of Errors, The Salisbury Review, Autumn 2010, Accessed 23-February-2010
  22. Graeme Paton, Students call for migrant watch don to be sacked, The Daily Telegraph, 2-March-2007
  23. Graeme Paton, Students call for migrant watch don to be sacked, The Daily Telegraph, 2-March-2007
  24. Graeme Paton, Students call for migrant watch don to be sacked, The Daily Telegraph, 2-March-2007
  25. Graeme Paton, Students call for migrant watch don to be sacked, The Daily Telegraph, 2-March-2007
  26. Rebecca Attwood, Bid to oust don is 'witch-hunt', Times Higher Education Supplement, 2-March-2007
  27. Fiona Barton, This Oxford don dared speak out on immigration. Now he's being hounded out by protesters funded by, you guessed it, the Big Lottery Fund, The Daily Mail, 8-March-2007
  28. Graeme Paton, Students call for migrant watch don to be sacked, The Daily Telegraph, 2-March-2007
  29. Melanie Newman, Faith threat to free speech, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 16-March-2007
  30. Melanie Newman, Faith threat to free speech, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 16-March-2007
  31. Melanie Newman, Ethos may be a foe to freedom, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 16-March-2007
  32. Jessica Shepherd, University to ban gay marriages on campus, The Guardian, 6-February-2007
  33. BBC News, University accepts 'gay weddings', BBC News, 28-March-2007, Accessed 24-February-2011
  34. Melanie Newman, Debate rages despite 'advice', The Times Higher Education Supplement, 16-March-2007
  35. Melanie Newman, Debate rages despite 'advice', The Times Higher Education Supplement, 16-March-2007
  36. Melanie Newman, Free Speech Wins the Day, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 26-October-2007
  37. Melanie Newman, Free Speech Wins the Day, The Time Higher Education Supplement, 26-October-2007
  38. Features, Public Agenda, Academics flinch from debate, Times Higher Education Supplement, 6-November-2007
  39. Melanie Newman, Right to Speak is Threatened, Times Higher Education Supplement, 2-November-2007
  40. Melanie Newman, Right to Speak is Threatened, Times Higher Education Supplement, 2-November-2007
  41. Richard Reynolds, Academe is guilty of institutional cowardice, The Times Higher Educational Supplement, 2-November-2007
  42. Melanie Newman, Brown softens stand in extremism debate, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 23-November-2007
  43. Melanie Newman, UCU delegates voice concerns over clampdown on academic freedom, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 22-May-2008
  44. Melanie Newman, Watchdog wants BNP to be denied right to teach, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 27-November-2008
  45. Dennis Hayes, Freedom is not an academic discussion, Spiked Online, 3-June-2008, Accessed 24-February-2011
  46. Melanie Newman, Student union calls for end to Tel Aviv centenary lectures, Times Higher Education Supplement, 16-January-2009, Accessed 27-February-2011
  47. Melanie Newman, Student union calls for end to Tel Aviv centenary lectures, Times Higher Education Supplement, 16-January-2009, Accessed 27-February-2011
  48. Head2Head, Glees Vs. Hayes, Institute of Ideas, Accessed 24-February-2011
  49. Head2Head, Glees Vs. Hayes, Institute of Ideas, Accessed 24-February-2011
  50. Head2Head, Glees Vs. Hayes, Institute of Ideas, Accessed 24-February-2011
  51. Hannah Fearn, Cleared but under a cloud, lecturer ignites freedom row, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 20-May-2010
  52. "AFAF Media Coverage", AFAF website, accessed 8 May 2010