University threatened with legal action after protest at academic's talk

A leading academic who supervised a recent government inquiry into sex and gender data collection has filed a lawsuit against the University of Bristol, alleging that the University did not do not do enough to protect her right of expression. After a talk she gave at the university was interrupted by a trans rights demonstration, Prof Alice Sullivan has also written to the university's Office for Students (OfS). Universities have a constitutional obligation to uphold the right to free expression while also balancing this with the right of protest by those who protest. Despite unacceptable disruption that is in accordance with the University of Bristol's strong commitment to upholding free expression, the university denied her assertions and said the talk went smoothly.

Universities have a long tradition of safeguarding the rights of employees, students, and visiting speakers to freely express views that others may find offensive. With the introduction of a new freedom of expression in higher education in August, it has heightened in focus. Every move taken by the University of Bristol in favor of free expression, according to the University's statement. Prof Sullivan's report for the government, released in March, recommended that biological sex and gender identity be collected as separate categories. She said she was first invited to speak about her work as an academic at the University of Bristol in July 2024, and that she attended a festival in the fall. Prof Sullivan's lawyers wrote a new letter to the university that warns she is willing to bring a court challenge, but that allegations regarding transphobia from the LGBTQ+ employee network were given priority and influenced the university. She argued that her freedom of expression had been restricted in a variety of ways, including: the OfS' published guidance for universities on how the new law on upholding free expression came into place in August. Universities should not deny the use of its premises on the basis of a speaker's words or thoughts, according to the university, and should have a concrete strategy for ensuring that steps are taken to allow events to take place. Universities should not

interfere with free expression or academic rights any more than is necessary to ensure that the event proceeds smoothly and within the regulations,

the university says. According to Prof Sullivan's letter, the University of Bristol had first suggested the event was held online rather than in person. Prof Sullivan denied the BBC that she had not known what the protests would be like, but acknowledged that some individuals might have firmly opposed gender identity and had the right to express it. Everyone has the right to peaceful demonstration, she said, but

it must never amount to a heckler's veto, which means closing down other people's right to speak.

This isn't just about my rights as a visiting speaker; it's about the right of the university community to hold discussions and encourage others to attend and listen.

The event was scheduled for October 22nd 2025, despite a postponement. Some people at the front of the building caught the demonstration on their phones as Prof. Sullivan arrived. Some of the demonstrators were seen making rude gestures while others held signs, according to videos that were seen and confirmed by the BBC. Prof Sullivan said on the BBC that it was like a

zombie apocalypse" as some demonstrators pressed up against the window with placards and cheerers.

More than once, disrupting the discussion, until security forces advised them to move to a higher floor. Prof Sullivan said she heard howls of 'shame on you, shame on you as she left after the case. The police told the BBC that they were at the festival and that no arrests had been made. According to Prof. Sullivan's lawyers' letter, the University of Bristol had 15 months to find a safe location on campus for the discussion. It also states that records leaked by the university reveal that there had been reports against her speaking out against her. Prof Sullivan has shared several of her questions about the OfS, which as the regulator of universities in England, has the power to fine colleges if they fail to uphold freedom of expression. The OfS handed out a historic fine of £585,000 to the University of Sussex earlier this year, noting that the university's transgender and non-binary integration policy had a chilling effect on freedom of expression. Following demonstrations against her gender-critical views, Kathleen Stock left her position as a professor of philosophy at Sussex University, where they generally agree that a person's sex can not be changed and takes precedence over their gender identity. Following the Sussex fine, the University of Bristol introduced a similar policy, stating that all employees were accountable for deleting transphobic and anti-trans material from campus. A new freedom of expression law came into operation in August, boosting the legislative obligations on universities to protect freedom of speech. The government has yet to implement the complaints procedure that was promised as part of the greater powers. Prof Sullivan has told Arif Ahmed, the OfS' director of free expression, that she is concerned that gender ideology led to Bristol's

actions to obstruct and frustrate my speech. Senior managers at the university may have apologized, and they may have said they should have said we should do better in the future,

she told the BBC. I want from them what I want, she said. The discussion went well and in accordance with the University of Bristol's strong dedication to upholding free expression.Although demonstrators caused irreversible disruption, appropriate steps were taken to ensure the event continues and shield the speaker and attendees,

they said. The vice-chancellor had subsequently met Prof Sullivan, according to the university.

We refute allegations that we failed to safeguard her right of expression; every step we took was in favor of this and the limitations she outlined were all necessary for public safety,the spokesperson said.Our position is straightforward - free expression must be lawful. There is no safeguard in the case against abusive speech that provokes violence, mistreatment, or discrimination.