Why is the Office for Students not protecting free speech at ‘theological colleges’?

Universities in the UK are among the best in the world, a distinction built on the longstanding independence of academics to pursue their research, teaching, and scholarship, unfettered by institutional or government-imposed doctrine and dogma. In any democracy, academics and their students must be free to think independently and to express ideas openly, provided they remain within the law and do not, for example, incite violence or racial hatred.

The importance of academic freedom and freedom of speech in Higher Education (HE) is enshrined in UK law, not least in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, yet following the expansion of the sector in the past two decades several new HE providers explicitly suppress academic freedom and freedom of speech amongst staff, and set out to indoctrinate students (in the true sense of the word) and prevent them thinking for themselves. How is it possible that these institutions have been registered as HE providers and are able to receive public funding?

Four years ago, while undertaking research for the National Secular Society (NSS) into religious privilege in Higher Education—which is insidious, but that is another story—we discovered a dozen or so ‘theological colleges’ which offer degree-level courses yet overtly suppress academic freedom and freedom of speech. Significantly, many of these theological colleges are churches, groups of churches, or wholly owned subsidiaries of evangelical churches which pass themselves off as educational establishments and are directly supported by the public purse. For example, in 2024, Moorlands College, which subscribes to the Evangelical Alliance, received more than £1,000,000 in student fee income and £27,631 in grants from public sources. Since 2018, these theological colleges have received almost one hundred million pounds of public funds.

There can be no doubt that many theological colleges deliberately restrict academic freedom and freedom of speech. Their governing documents require governors/trustees, staff, and students to accept and adhere to ‘Statements of Faith’ or other ‘I Believe’ statements. Moorlands College, for example, declares that its objects are to promote the Christian religion ‘provided that all activities are carried out in accordance with the doctrinal basis set out in the schedule to the articles of Association’, and their annual Trustee Report (June 2021) states that the top priority for governors is to ‘Ensure the ongoing re-affirmation of the evangelical Christian beliefs at the core of the College’. Their evangelical beliefs include discrimination against homosexuals and other members of the LGBTQ+ community.

Similarly, the Articles of Association of Christ the Redeemer College of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, an expansionist Nigerian Pentecostal Church, states that its objects are ‘to advance the Christian Faith by establishing and maintaining a Bible training institution based solely on the Christian doctrines, principles and faith as set out in the Statement of Faith in clause 6 hereof…’, and the parent church states on its website that ‘If there be found any member disobeying these teachings he may be disciplined privately, but if any backslider would not admit discipline and restitute his way, he may be disciplined openly’.

Statements such as these, as well as job descriptions, student admissions criteria, and disciplinary codes, make it abundantly clear that these churches and their educational subsidiaries actively discriminate against students and staff who do not adhere to their rigid doctrinal beliefs. It is worth noting that the UK Supreme Court has recently ruled that ‘conveying knowledge in a manner that is not objective, critical, and pluralistic amounts to pursuing the aim of indoctrination’ in relation to exclusively Christian worship in schools in Northern Ireland. It is undeniable that these theological colleges are similarly committed to indoctrination, not education.

Most or all trustees/governors of these theological colleges are appointed because of their position in their church, not on the basis of their skills or according to the Nolan Principles for public office holders, as would normally be expected for a publicly-funded educational establishment. There is, therefore, an irreconcilable conflict of interest between the primary responsibilities of trustees/governors to their church and their secondary responsibilities to educational provision.

For example, every trustee of Christ the Redeemer College is a senior member of the Redeemed Christian Church of God and thus bound to uphold the church’s statement of faith. Similarly, the trustees of Elim Foursquare Gospel Alliance (a registered HE provider) are all ministers in a group of Pentecostal churches whose website states that ‘members share a set of beliefs known as our Foundation Truths’. These include: ‘We believe the Bible, as originally given, to be without error, the fully inspired and infallible Word of God and the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith and conduct’. (Note: the academic governors listed on the website of the Alliance’s subsidiary, Regents Theological College, are not the accountable governing body.)

Furthermore, the accounts of Elim Foursquare Gospel Alliance state that their principal business is ‘acquiring and renovating churches and manses for our ministers’ and that ‘any surplus is invested in these capital projects’. Because public funds go directly to these churches, groups of churches, or their wholly owned subsidiaries, there is no means of assuring that public monies intended for education are properly accounted for.

In 2017 the responsibility for overseeing public funding of Higher Education was given to the newly created Office for Students (OfS) by the Higher Education and Research Act (HERA), which places a duty on the OfS to maintain a register of HE providers who must ‘demonstrate that they satisfy a set of initial conditions of registration to ensure that they are able to offer high quality higher education to students. They will be required, for example, to uphold the set of public interest governance principles…’ These latter include academic freedom and freedom of speech. On its website, the OfS states that academic freedom means that staff and students must be able to ‘question and test received wisdom; and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions’.

How can it be that the OfS has registered these theological colleges and handed over taxpayers’ money to churches and other organisations that are bound by their governing documents to limit free speech and academic freedom, and which fail to demonstrate sound governance and proper accountability for public funds?

Back in 2021, we first alerted the then-Chair of the OfS, Lord Wharton, to the fact that several theological colleges were in breach of the registration criteria which all registered HE providers are bound to uphold, and we were told that we should submit our complaints as ‘third party notifications’. We, in conjunction with the NSS, have since submitted seven ‘third party notifications’ detailing the evidence that about a dozen theological colleges are in breach of the conditions of registration, yet the OfS has consistently replied that they will ‘neither confirm nor deny’ whether they will investigate or take action.

Where is the transparency espoused by the OfS, which is expected to be a hallmark of all government regulators? We were then told to await the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, even though this was irrelevant to the mis-registration of these theological colleges and only strengthened the case for their deregistration. We have since submitted Freedom of Information requests and had face-to-face and virtual meetings with the OfS Director for Freedom of Speech, Arif Ahmed, who also refused to ‘confirm or deny’ whether the OfS would investigate. Yet, at about the time we submitted our original notification, the OfS announced on its own website that it would be investigating the University of Sussex for what seems to be a lesser breach of the conditions of registration (it subsequently imposed a fine of £585,000). Why these double standards?

Is the OfS deliberately privileging and protecting religious institutions? Is it afraid that if it deregisters these theological colleges, it might be subject to legal action? Or is it simply incompetent? Some have pointed out an exemption in the Equality Act 2010 which allows HE providers to discriminate on the basis of religious doctrine where there is a ‘genuine occupational requirement’, exemplified by teaching theology for ordination. However, many of these theological colleges are not teaching ordinands and offer general courses in the humanities, social sciences, and even business, where there could not possibly be a genuine occupational requirement.

Furthermore, the exemption to the Equality Act does not imply that doctrinally-based training colleges should be registered by the OfS or receive public funds. It has long been a general principle of HE in the UK that public funding provides a broad-based education, while the funding of employer-specific provision is left to the employer.  Students can study theology openly at our universities, and doctrine-specific training of ordinands by the Catholic Church, the Church of England, and non-Christian faiths is, quite rightly, funded by the churches and faiths themselves. So why did the OfS register these denomination-specific theological colleges and thus allow them to be funded by the public purse?

In a letter to us dated 25 July 2025, Arif Ahmed, the so-called ‘free speech tsar’, confirmed in writing that ‘To register (and remain registered) with the OfS, universities and colleges must meet our initial and ongoing conditions. These ensure (among other things) that providers uphold the public interest governance principles, including those relating to academic freedom and freedom of speech’. Yet in a face-to-face meeting with Dr Ahmed at about the same time, we asked him directly whether a requirement for all staff and students to sign a Statement of Faith is a restriction of academic freedom. He refused to give us a straight answer.  What is the point of a ‘free speech tsar’ who is unable or unwilling to determine whether or not an organisation is restricting freedom of speech or academic freedom?

The only possible conclusion we can draw is that the regulator is well aware of the errors it made in registering these theological colleges several years ago. At the time, registration was based on self-assessment of compliance with the terms of registration, and it seems that the OfS did not bother to check whether or not they were being misled by self-generated policy documents, or read the institution’s foundation governing documents. Having had their mistakes pointed out to them, the refusal of the OfS to acknowledge the issue and repeated attempts to kick it into the long grass are, at best, an evasion of the regulator’s responsibility for ensuring students get the best possible education, promoting freedom of speech across the sector, and appropriately stewarding public funds.

It is vital for all freethinkers to defend freedom of speech and academic freedom in HE. The OfS must not be let off the hook. The regulator has already faced difficulties and legal action because of its mis-registration of fraudulent franchise providers and is facing a judicial review questioning its handling of the Sussex case. It is not enough to expect that the recent announcement that the OfS CEO will be departing from her role soon will make a difference.

The OfS has failed in its regulatory duty to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom in Higher Education, a situation that must not be allowed to continue. Not only must the OfS act immediately to deregister these theological colleges or otherwise prevent them from recruiting students at public expense, but under its newly appointed Chair it must undergo substantial reform to give rigour to its regulatory processes and demonstrate the transparency expected of a government regulator. Now, in a bid to make sure the OfS actually does its job, the NSS is launching legal action against it. But what a poor reflection on the OfS, that it must be forced after years of evasion to stand up for free speech and academic freedom.