"We have removed them," came the assurances from several vice-chancellors after Alumni for Free Speech began its scrutiny. Yet a report published on 14 July 2026 tells a different story. Of 162 institutions examined, 70, or 43 per cent, continue to require job applicants to demonstrate commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion principles or declare that staff must promote them.
This is not mere bureaucratic inertia. It is resistance dressed up as virtue. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, with key provisions in force since 1 August 2025, imposes clear duties on universities to secure freedom of speech within the law, including in recruitment. Office for Students guidance could scarcely be plainer: demanding evidence of EDI zeal risks restricting lawful viewpoints and breaches those duties. Still the requirements linger.
After direct contact from the campaign group, 36 universities dropped the demands entirely, nine made partial changes, and another 25 fixed their practices without formal escalation. That leaves at least 33 institutions, including persistent offenders, carrying on regardless. Seventeen universities flagged in 2025 remain non-compliant. Four Russell Group members have defied both years of pressure.
As The Free Speech Union revealed, those four include Birmingham, Durham, Newcastle and UCL. Their refusal to adapt, even after warnings and updated regulatory advice, suggests something deeper than administrative oversight. These are not backwater colleges struggling with paperwork. They are among the country's most prestigious seats of learning, places that once prized intellectual independence above all.
The ideological test beneath the jargon
Consider what these statements actually do. An academic applying for a post in physics or history or classics must now signal alignment with a particular worldview on race, gender, and identity. Dissenting, even silently, becomes hazardous. The Office for Students has warned precisely against this outcome. Viewpoint discrimination in hiring is incompatible with the legal duty to foster open debate. Yet here we are, two years after royal assent, watching some of our finest institutions treat the law as optional.
