Universities ‘keep EDI hiring requirements’ despite law change

Several English universities have declined to remove diversity requirements from their hiring practices despite the risk of falling foul of new free speech rules, a campaign group has alleged after reviewing job adverts.

The Alumni for Free Speech (AFFS) group said it had identified “very risky” practices across a significant number of institutions in the sector, having studied the recruitment criteria of 162 institutions.

Many of the institutions named by the group have pushed back on the findings, insisting their practices are legal and comply with all regulatory requirements, and the research was based on out-of-date adverts.

The Freedom of Speech (Higher Education) Act, parts of which came into effect on 1 August, makes it clear that universities cannot demand that applicants express or support particular values in order to get a job.

Office for Students guidance on the new rules states that institutions should not require applicants to any academic position to commit, or give evidence of commitment, to a particular viewpoint.

A report from the AFFS published on 14 July, University EDI Support Requirements in Recruitment, found that 70 out of 162 institutions (43 per cent) required applicants to demonstrate commitment to EDI or said that employees were expected to promote such principles.

This was a slight decline on 45 per cent of universities identified in a similar report published last year, although the methodology for the latest research differed.  

The AFFS said it had written to the institutions identified, informing them that they were “highly likely to be contrary to their legal and regulatory obligations towards free speech”, after which 25 universities (36 per cent) took steps to “fully remediate” the issues.

However, the campaigners then reported 43 English universities that did not take sufficient action to the OfS and recommended nine of these be investigated by the watchdog for being “particularly egregious offenders”.

There have since been no apparent changes at 33 of these institutions, AFFS said, including the universities of Birmingham, Greater Manchester and Nottingham, Durham and Newcastle universities and UCL.

“These institutions cannot credibly claim to be unaware of this problem: it was raised with them more than a year ago, and they have since had the requirements reiterated, not least by the express terms of the OfS Guidance, which addresses the subject-matter of this report and makes clear that requiring applicants to evidence a commitment to EDI is likely to be unlawful,” says the report.

But the universities denied wrongdoing. UCL said it was “unable to comment on data” that it does not recognise and said that it was “concerned that the methodology used to collate this report has not been transparent or published”.  

Durham, meanwhile, said it had updated its recruitment documents since the AFFS originally got in contact with the university, but insisted the change was not as a result of the campaign group. It added it had not been contacted by the OfS over any concerns.

“Durham University is committed to freedom of speech and to meeting our obligations under equality law. Our recruitment practices are lawful. They are reviewed and evolved to meet regulatory and other requirements,” the spokesperson said.

Birmingham insisted that its recruitment practices are compliant. “As part of ongoing work across the institution, we have reviewed our relevant policies and documentation, and are content they remain consistent with our legal duties,” it said. 

Greater Manchester said that it had amended its job description policy on diversity in August 2025, but admitted that some job adverts were using outdated statements, which it said “will be addressed”.

A Newcastle spokesperson said: “Our policies and practices comply with all relevant legislation and regulatory requirements, including our duties relating to EDI, academic freedom and freedom of speech.”

The AFFS said it will share its findings with the OfS and will “continue to monitor” recruitment requirements, including notifying the regulator of “failures which are not put right”.

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com