Free to speak out?

Lecturers are speaking their minds on controversial issues and students are calling for them to be sacked. Clare Rudbeck reports on how recent cases have polarised opinion in the universities and led to allegations of racism

There's nothing wrong with racism," read the article on Professor Geoffrey Sampson's website. But his university, its students and his party, the Conservatives, did not agree. Within a week of the article appearing, Professor Sampson, a lecturer in natural language computing at Sussex University, had been forced to step down as a Tory Councillor. He was denounced by the university's vice-chancellor and was facing calls to resign from other lecturers and Sussex students' union.

Did Professor Sampson deserve the condemnation? He had not broken the law. There was no evidence that he had discriminated against his students on the basis of race. Didn't he have the right to freedom of speech?

His opponents argue that it is unfair for students from ethnic minorities to be taught and assessed by someone who holds racist views. Under the new Race Relations (Amendment) Act, universities now have a legal duty to promote racial equality on campus. Caught between their obligation to uphold the rights of their ethnic minority students and their duty to protect academic freedom, universities are struggling to answer the question: what do you do with a racist lecturer?

In his article, Professor Sampson argued that there was overwhelming scientific evidence that races differ in their average intelligence levels. "Yellow-skinned Orientals tend to be rather brighter than whites, negroes tend to be rather less bright," the piece reads.

Professor Sampson has refused to retract what he had written, arguing that his views did not affect his teaching or treatment of students. "I don't know how they could," he says. "The findings relate to averages and tell us nothing about particular individuals."

The students' union is less than convinced. "We believe it is entirely detrimental to student welfare to have some students reliant on a professor who deems them to be genetically inferior," says Jess Hill, the union's communications officer.

This is the latest in a series of similar cases which have rocked higher education recently. At Oxford University, Tom Paulin, a lecturer in English, is under investigation for reportedly saying last month that American-born Jewish settlers in Israel should be shot dead. In 2000, Leeds University came under pressure when it was discovered that Frank Ellis, a lecturer in Russian and Slavonic Studies, was speaking at American Renaissance, a far-right conference in the USA. Speakers at this year's conference included the BNP leader Nick Griffin. In 1996, Edinburgh University sacked Chris Brand, a psychology lecturer who had claimed that black people were less intelligent than whites.

All four institutions – Sussex, Oxford, Leeds and Edinburgh – have dealt with the issue differently. Sussex opted for strong words but no action. It "dissociated" itself from Professor Sampson's views but made it clear that, unless he was proved to have discriminated against staff or students, there was no question of his resignation. "We have received no complaints ... about Professor Sampson's views affecting his teaching or treatment of students or staff," says Professor Alasdair Smith, the university's vice-chancellor. "If any member of the university were guilty of discriminatory behaviour, we would treat that as a matter of utmost gravity."

Professor Sampson certainly could not be sacked for his views alone, because the university statutes protect the rights of academics to express their views, however unpopular, so long as they are within the law. The students' union thinks that this stance is "entirely unsatisfactory".

By contrast, Oxford University is saying very little about Dr Paulin. Unlike Sussex, however, it has launched an investigation into the matter, which it says is proceeding "as quickly as is consistent with fairness and thoroughness". Professor Alan Ryan, Warden of New College, Oxford, supports Oxford's decision not to condemn Dr Paulin immediately. "With the Tom Paulin stuff, the best thing for the university to say is absolutely nothing," he says. "The university ought not, as an institution, to make itself responsible for the views of its members nor be held responsible for those views."

Neville Nagler, director general of the Board of Jewish Deputies, disagrees. Although Dr Paulin should not necessarily be dismissed, it should be made clear to him that his reported comments were totally unacceptable, he says. "If there are people in positions of authority such as lecturers and fellows who are making racially inflammatory comments and these are distressing to part of the student fraternity, I think the university has an obligation to deal with such matters."

The arguments at Oxford have centred not on possible discrimination, but on whether Dr Paulin's comments were illegal. The board of deputies threatened to take Oxford to court when his comments were made public. "Tom Paulin's remarks may well constitute incitement to murder," Neville Nagler said at the time.

After taking legal advice, the board has decided not to pursue the case. "We know from our own experience how difficult it is to get a racial incitement case off the stocks," he says. "In this case, I suspect Jewish settlers in the territories would not be regarded as an ethnic or racial group. Therefore on technical grounds, I don't think the prosecution would stand up."

But Alan Ryan, like many at Oxford, does not believe that Paulin's comments broke the law on incitement to commit a crime. "All Paulin's been doing is ventilating some fairly wacky political views," he says. "I think with incitement, you have to do it under conditions where you've got some prospect of making a difference."

Paulin says his views were "distorted" and that he has been a lifelong opponent of anti-Semitsm. "I do not support attacks on Israeli citizens under any circumstances."

A spokesman for Oxford University would say only that the investigation was examining Dr Paulin's reported comments in the light of the Human Rights Act and the university's code, which ensures freedom of speech. He added that the university did not discuss the details of internal disciplinary investigations. So, the reasoning behind the investigation's eventual conclusions may never be known.

In effect, the cases fall into a problematic grey area. Tom Paulin and Geoffrey Sampson made their comments in a personal capacity about subjects outside their academic field. Dr Paulin was speaking to an Egyptian newspaper and Professor Sampson posted the article on his personal website.

Arguably, an employer should not be held responsible for comments made outside the workplace. Moreover, no one has complained that either lecturer has been disciminatory at any time. They could have complained because most universities have clear anti-discrimination and racial harassment policies, with disciplinary procedures for those who transgress.

Lecturers and students' unions are split over the issue. The National Union of Students thinks that people with racist views should be sacked. "The NUS has a clear no-platform policy for racists and fascists," says Owain James, the NUS president. "If a lecturer has made racist comments and the university keeps them on the payroll they are in effect giving that lecturer a platform. The campus environment must remain a safe and tolerant one where no student feels threatened in any way. That clearly cannot be the case if a racist lecturer is allowed to remain in post."

Lecturers are far more ambivalent, however. Paul Cotterell, assistant general secretary of the Association of University Teachers, says he's not sure whether Professor Sampson should be sacked. "The honest answer is, I don't know. We've never debated something like this. If a lecturer were racist we would be very strongly opposed to that individual but how that influences their employment is a really difficult issue."

At their annual meeting this month, AUT members called for a debate about admitting students with openly racist views, after concerns were raised about a Leeds University student who is an active member of the BNP. Should they extend that debate to racist lecturers? "Yes, certainly," says Mr Cotterell. "Where racism comes from is irrelevant. We would react in the same way whether it was students or staff."

With tensions high on campuses across the country, the debate cannot happen soon enough. In the absence of clear precedents, universities are floundering.

For example, Edinburgh University sacked Chris Brand in 1997 for embarrassing them and ended up paying £12,000 in an out-of-court settlement. The lecturer had claimed that paedophilia was acceptable as long as the child was over 12 and of above average intelligence. A year earlier, he had come under fire for writing a book containing the claim that black people are less intelligent than whites. His university defended him the first time, but fired him for gross misconduct after the second controversy.

A university tribunal found that he had "courted further publicity and shown a desire to pursue his own goals at the expense of others". The effect was that he had "undermine[d] completely any of the remaining trust and confidence which members of the department might have had in Mr Brand as a colleague".

In other words, he was sacked for bringing bad publicity to the university and embarrassing his colleagues. Brand sued Edinburgh for unfair dismissal, which concluded with the £12,000 compensation payment.

c.rudebeck@independent.co.uk