An election that's begun at St Andrews University could have consequences for free speech. It must go the right way, says Mark Smith

I know the election most of us are thinking about at the moment is the one for the Scottish Parliament in May, but I’d like to draw your attention to another election happening right now. It begins today and has rather gone under the radar, but how it pans out and who wins could affect some of the big issues we’ve been wrestling with in recent years, not least freedom of speech.

The election is to choose the Chancellor of St Andrews University, a position that’s vacant because of the death last year of Ming Campbell, who’d held the post since 2006. Lord Campbell is a very hard act to follow – on anything – but four candidates have come forward, all of them with acres of experience in the Foreign Office, the civil service, defence, diplomacy, you name it. Voting starts today and continues until Sunday, with the result announced on the 23rd.

You may be thinking a university election doesn’t matter much, especially one for a largely ceremonial role like Chancellor. You may also remember your own days at uni and what student politics were like: very few lefties fighting with very great intensity for very few votes. A friend of mine stood for the Tories at Aberdeen in the 80s which was brave even then. Some people assume the domination of campuses by the Left – deplatforming, all of that – is new, but most students have always been lefty. Some of it’s genuine, some of it’s performative, some of it’s immature, and some of it’s just an effort to fit in. The only hope is that most of them leave uni, get a job, get a life, grow up a bit and it sorts itself out, which is usually does.

However, the election at St Andrews University is actually bigger than that. For a start, the electorate is St Andrews staff and alumni so we’re talking an extremely serious bunch of people and 7,072 of them have registered to vote. It also comes at a pretty critical time for universities. The most pressing issue is funding, which is a jenga tower just waiting to collapse. But not far behind is the proliferation on campuses of contested theories on gender and race (known as EDI) and the effect it’s had on the free speech of staff and students. I wrote a story a couple of years ago about how much universities were spending on EDI (many millions – in St Andrews case £235,189) and how much universities were spending on protecting free speech (£0). And in 2026, it’s still very uncertain about where we go from here.

After Peggie: the people who will end this. But it won't be easy | The Herald

The CCA and an Israel boycott – the alarm bells are ringing | The Herald

The saga of the George Square sword – it must come back to Glasgow | The Herald

One organisation that wants to have an influence is Alumni For Free Speech (AFFS), which was set up by graduates worried about what was happening at universities. They were the ones who uncovered the shedloads of cash universities were spending on EDI and now they’re intervening in the St Andrews election in an attempt to ensure it goes the right way. They sent out questionnaires to all four candidates, asking them about EDI, free speech and other issues, and the resulting report has just been published. There are signs of hope in it, and signs of concern.

The signs of hope are that two of the candidates – former civil servant Lord Mark Sedwill and defence consultant Lady Alex Walmsley – replied in detail and said largely encouraging things about free speech. Lady Walmsley acknowledged the existence of a free speech problem at some universities and accepted that certain aspects of EDI are having adverse effects on free speech and causing self-censorship. Lord Sedwill also expressed concern about the coercive ways in which EDI can operate and supported the concept of universities remaining institutionally neutral; “a university that behaves like a political actor risks discouraging dissent within its own community,” he said.

On the basis of the answers they received (the other two replied but didn’t complete the questionnaire), Alumni For Free Speech is recommending both Lord Sedwill and Lady Walmsley as candidates they can support. Their hope is that, although we’re talking about a largely ceremonial role, the election of a Chancellor more concerned about issues such as institutional neutrality or the effect of mandatory EDI training might bring about some change in the university’s approach and help improve its free speech culture, and the answers of Lord Sedwill and Lady Walmsley offer some encouragement that may be so.

Menzies Campbell wsa chancellor until his death last year Picture: PA

However, worries remain. St Andrews says the university’s policies include the promise to promote and defend academic freedom and freedom of speech; it’s also important to note it has never deplatformed speakers and has given platforms to, in no particular order, the leader of the BNP, trans activists and Nicola Sturgeon. The leadership of the university has also said a number of times they’re committed to freedom of speech, and staff and students have the right to express their views, within the law, and should expect to be debated or challenged. This is all good stuff, bravo.

But the concern of AFFS – and it’s a concern I share having spoken to many students and academics about this – is that the culture that works against free speech is actually much more subtle than just deplatforming. Mandatory EDI training for staff and students effectively imposes the acceptance of theories on gender and race that are highly contested; no debate or argument is brooked – accept or fail. What then happens is staff and students self-censor to pass, or get work, and get on, which means a large part of the problem is hidden and unseen. But it’s still there, real, and corrosive.

The candidates AFFS has endorsed appear to accept some of this, which is encouraging. Lady Walmsley said she was uncomfortable with the impact some EDI programmes can have on freedom of speech and that “fostering a climate where people may feel obliged to self-censor out of fear of being ostracised or penalised for holding views contrary to the ‘mainstream’ view of the moment creates a potentially threatening and destabilising environment”. Lord Sedwill also said that participating in EDI shouldn’t be compulsory where the training concerns contested politics.

And so – with a little help I hope from Lady Walmsley or Lord Sedwill – there are a few steps St Andrews and other universities could take. For a start, as Lord Sedwill says they should, they should make public the contents of any EDI training so that staff and students and the wider community can assess whether it meets the appropriate standards. St Andrews continues to have an association with external activist groups such as Stonewall. We should know precisely what they’re saying and doing.

But it’s not the only step universities could take. As I say, millions is being spent on EDI and nothing on freedom of speech – universities should fix this by appointing someone senior whose brief is to promote and protect freedom of speech. Whoever that person is would be neutral on controversial subjects such as gender – as the university itself should be – and would actively work to encourage people to talk about the subject and other controversial issues. Because that’s how universities should be.

I’m not necessarily confident we’re going to get there quickly but the election at St Andrews beginning today is at least a small opportunity to apply some pressure. And so, if you do happen to be a former student of St Andrews, and if you are registered to vote, and if you are worried about where we’ve been going on campuses, I urge you to seek out the AFFS report and read it and cast your vote. In one of her answers to the questionnaire, Lady Walmsley said the movement to suppress free speech and academic freedoms that was starting to gain traction may now be subsiding. Here’s a welcome chance to give it another little push.

© Herald Scotland