A Conservative Critique of Genderism in UK Universities: The Sullivan Report and Academic Freedom, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)
Professor Alice Sullivan's July 2025 report, commissioned by the former Conservative government, exposes a troubling reality in UK universities: gender-critical academics, those who assert the biological and social importance of sex, are facing systemic bullying, harassment, and career-threatening restrictions on their research. From a conservative perspective critical of genderism, the report underscores how ideological overreach, driven by activist networks and bureaucratic complicity, threatens academic freedom, intellectual integrity, and the pursuit of truth. This discussion examines the report's findings, situates them within a broader conservative critique of gender ideology, and evaluates the implications for universities as bastions of open inquiry, drawing on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act and related evidence.
Sullivan's report, based on 140 submissions predominantly from gender-critical academics, reveals a pattern of "freedom-restricting harassment" that includes intimidation, smear campaigns, and professional exclusion. High-profile cases, such as Professor Kathleen Stock's resignation from the University of Sussex in 2021 after a three-year campaign of abuse, illustrate the personal and professional toll. Stock faced protests, social media vitriol, and comparisons to "eugenicists" and "racists" for arguing that biological sex matters in policy and law. Similarly, Professor Jo Phoenix's criminological research career was "permanently stopped" after she proposed studying the risks of placing trans-identifying males in female prisons, leading to her resignation from the Open University in 2021 after harassment and insufficient institutional support.
Sullivan herself was targeted when a planned talk led to the cancellation of a 2020 conference, highlighting how even senior academics are not immune. The report identifies structural issues, overly complex ethics committees, equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) frameworks, and administrative bloat, as tools exploited by activists to block research or silence dissent. For example, Dr. Sallie Baxendale's study on the neurocognitive effects of puberty blockers was rejected not for methodological flaws but for its findings, which challenged prevailing gender-affirming narratives. These cases suggest a chilling effect, where academics self-censor to avoid becoming "the next witch-hunt."
From a conservative viewpoint, this is not merely a failure of university governance but a symptom of genderism, an ideology that chooses gender identity over biological reality, often dismissing sex-based differences as irrelevant or offensive. This ideology, rooted in progressive activism, has infiltrated academic institutions, weaponising bureaucratic processes to enforce conformity. The report's call for "consequences commensurate with the seriousness of the offence" for harassers and its critique of "partisan policies and messaging on questions of sex and gender" resonate with conservative principles of individual liberty, accountability, and scepticism toward ideological dogma.
Conservatives critical of genderism argue that it undermines the foundational purpose of universities: to pursue truth through open debate and rigorous inquiry. Sullivan's report highlights how gender-critical academics, often women, are targeted for asserting that biological sex is a fixed, material reality with social and policy implications. This view, grounded in observable biology, is framed by opponents as "denying the existence" of trans people, a charge Sullivan refutes as a misrepresentation that stifles discussion. The April 2025 UK Supreme Court ruling affirming the legal recognition of biological sex further bolsters the gender-critical position, yet the report's evidence predates this, suggesting the harassment occurred in an environment already sceptical of gender ideology's claims.
Genderism, from this perspective, operates as a form of intellectual authoritarianism. It demands adherence to contested claims, such as gender identity superseding sex in all contexts, while punishing dissent through social and professional ostracism. The report cites academics being labelled as "eugenicists" or "fascists" by colleagues and LGBTQ+ staff networks, revealing a culture of vilification rather than debate. This mirrors broader conservative concerns about "woke" ideologies that value feelings over facts, suppress free speech, and erode meritocratic principles. The University of Sussex's £585,000 fine by the Office for Students (OfS) for failing to protect Stock's academic freedom underscores the institutional failure to uphold these values, with the university now seeking judicial review.
Sullivan's critique of "excessive and cumbersome bureaucratic processes" aligns with conservative distrust of bloated administrative systems, which often serve as vehicles for progressive agendas. The 125% rise in EDI team costs between 2022 and 2024, averaging £168,000 per UK university, illustrates this bureaucratic expansion, which conservatives argue diverts resources from education and enables activist overreach. By leveraging ethics reviews and complaints procedures, activists can delay or derail research without transparent justification, undermining the academic mission. Sullivan's recommendation to revise these processes to focus on genuine ethical concerns rather than reputational risks is a practical step toward restoring institutional neutrality.
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, set to take effect in August 2025, is a cornerstone of the conservative response to this crisis. The Act mandates universities to promote and protect free speech, establishes a complaints scheme overseen by the OfS's Director for Freedom of Speech, Professor Arif Ahmed, and bans non-disclosure agreements in cases of bullying or harassment. Conservatives view this as a necessary corrective to the "cancel culture" that has taken root in academia, exemplified by cases like Stock and Phoenix. The OfS's fines, such as the one imposed on Sussex, and its new guidance signal a shift toward accountability, aligning with conservative values of enforcing consequences for actions that violate core freedoms.
However, the Act's implementation faces challenges. Universities UK (UUK) acknowledges the legal obligation to protect free speech but notes the complexity of balancing this with preventing intimidation or a "chilling environment." Critics argue that universities, under pressure from activist groups, may continue to prioritise perceived inclusivity over open inquiry. The report's recommendation for similar protections in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland reflects a conservative push for consistent standards across the UK, ensuring no region becomes a haven for ideological suppression.
Sullivan's call for universities to foster "robust disagreement as an opportunity for intellectual growth" rather than directing dissenters to mental health resources challenges the therapeutic culture often associated with progressive ideologies. Conservatives argue that framing disagreement as a psychological harm infantilises students and stifles debate, undermining the university's role as a training ground for critical thinking. This perspective aligns with the Act's emphasis on creating spaces for open discussion, free from fear of retaliation.
From a conservative lens, the harassment of gender-critical academics is not just a personal injustice but a societal threat. Sullivan warns that suppressing research on sex and gender "harms the very groups that activists claim to support," such as women and vulnerable populations who rely on sex-based protections in policy. For example, Phoenix's research on trans-identifying males in female prisons was halted despite its relevance to public safety, illustrating how genderism can choose ideological purity over practical outcomes. Conservatives argue this reflects a broader pattern where progressive ideologies sacrifice reason for dogma, eroding trust in institutions.
The report's emphasis on the "decline of democratic academic governance" resonates with conservative critiques of centralised power and unaccountable bureaucracies. Most academics, Sullivan notes, have little say in university operations, leaving them vulnerable to activist-driven policies. This mirrors conservative concerns about elitist institutions, whether universities, media, or government, imposing top-down ideologies that silence dissent. The Phoenix judgment, where an employment tribunal found the Open University guilty of unfair dismissal for failing to protect her from a "hostile environment," sets a legal precedent that conservatives hope will deter further abuses.
The conservative critique of genderism extends beyond academia to its societal impacts, including policies on women's sports, prisons, and child safeguarding, where biological sex is critical. Sullivan's report, by highlighting barriers to research, underscores how genderism stifles evidence that could inform these debates. Conservatives view this as part of a larger battle against ideologies that reject objective reality, aligning with their emphasis on tradition, science, and individual responsibility.
Sullivan's report is an urgent call for conservatives critical of genderism, exposing how UK universities have failed to protect gender-critical academics from harassment and censorship. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act offers hope, but its success depends on robust enforcement and cultural change. From a conservative perspective, the fight against genderism in academia is about more than protecting individual scholars, it's about preserving the university as a space for truth-seeking, free from ideological tyranny. By addressing bureaucratic overreach, enforcing consequences for harassment, and fostering open debate, universities can reclaim their role as beacons of intellectual freedom. Failure to do so risks further eroding public trust and emboldening activists to silence dissent, a prospect conservatives see as anathema to a free and rational society.
Comments