The Dandridge Review re the Open University/Jo Phoenix: what universities need to know – and do
(28.01.25) The Dandridge Review (the “Review”) is a report, published in September 2024, of an independent investigation by Dame Nicola Dandridge which was commissioned by the Open University (“OU”) following its failure to manage disputes and prevent unlawful harassment of Professor Jo Phoenix over her views.
BFSP has reported on the Review in detail – see this here.
The potential usefulness of the Review was restricted by Dame Nicola’s terms of reference. These appeared to assume a need to “balance” legal rights to free speech with wider (non-legally mandated) equality and other agendas. This is the wrong focus as, in what many see as at times a legal and regulatory minefield, the focus has to remain on complying with legal obligations and negotiating a path through those obligations where they potentially conflict.
The terms of reference imposed on Dame Nicola were, therefore, highly inappropriate and inevitably caused some real weaknesses in the Review and its findings. They meant that, while the Review contains worthwhile statements about what universities and other higher education providers need to do to avoid legal and regulatory failures, there are some significant omissions and unhelpful obscurity and vagueness.
Despite the limitations of its terms of reference, and its overconcentration on the disputes between trans rights and gender critical feminism, the Review’s findings, with respect to what universities must do to protect free speech and avoid legal and compliance failures, are, generally, applicable to all universities.
Key Implications of the Review; requirements for action
- There was a culture of conformity/consensus at the OU, and fear amongst dissidents from orthodoxies.
- EDI was a source of freedom of speech problems.
- Requirements re standards of behaviour were poor and needed a lot of improvement. These to extend to clear guidelines about online working and online behaviour; and when it is not appropriate to express personal views at work, and that staff should be willing to work with colleagues whose views they disagree with.
- The vital need for clear, consistent, lawful and effective policies more generally.
- Universities need to adopt institutional neutrality.
- Much more early, active and effective management of disputes was needed.
- Dedicated, effective free speech promotion and protection structures, with separation from EDI.
Important matters omitted, understated or insufficiently clear
- The OU needed to ensure that its policies and requirements generally – and in respect of EDI agendas in particular – are structured so as not to inappropriately restrict free speech. Have adequate training and induction.
- Effective intervention and enforcement of behaviour requirements is vital when free speech problems arise.
- Effective systems for reporting and managing disputes and free speech complaints were needed.
- The need for a free speech officer to lead the free speech protection structures.
- The need to reduce common complaints cultures, and manage complaints connected with viewpoints effectively.
- Review and if necessary terminate relationships with external campaign organisations which given rise to free speech problems.
