After Charlie Kirk: Free Speech and Education in the UK

The shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk, a high-profile advocate for open dialogue, has once again brought the issue of free speech into sharp focus. While his work was centred in the United States, his assassination is a chilling reminder to all of us- especially in the West- that words and ideas are increasingly treated as dangerous in themselves—and that the cost of defending them can be devastating. 

In the UK- a modern, liberal society, there has, until perhaps recently, been an assumption that free speech is good for many reasons- but particularly for the advancement of knowledge and the avoidance of tyranny.  As the old adage goes, the best disinfectant for bad ideas is to bring them into the light. A truly tolerant society surely seeks to facilitate understanding between those who disagree- especially vital in our educational institutions. And as Christian, I’m of the opinion that freedom of speech is a good and noble concept which has enabled the proclamation of the gospel in our nation- and even our schools- for many years. 

But surveying the state of academic freedom in our educational institutions has deepened my unease over the state of British Universities. 

There is a problem 

The UK’s Global Academic Freedom ranking in 2023 marked its worst position in history, continuing a worrying decline over several years.  The UK is one of the few countries in the West where academic freedom has diminished since 1973—an alarming trend that signals a troubling failure in the education system and the erosion of critical thinking. Ranking lower than Peru, Burkina Faso, and Georgia, the UK’s great universities appear to be failing to uphold academic and cultural freedom- something so crucial where ideas are being formed, developed and taught. 

Christian beliefs and socially conservative values are increasingly under scrutiny, making it difficult for Christians to speak out in universities. Yet the targeting of academics like Kathleen Stock, a gender-critical feminist who resigned from the University of Sussex after student protests against her book challenging gender identity's primacy over biological sex, highlighted that censorship and restrictions on free expression are not limited to Christians. 

And what’s happening at the Higher levels of Education are simply a more sophisticated development of what is happening at the lower levels of education. Or, it is probably more accurate  to say that what’s happening in higher education is trickling down into primary and secondary education; the prevailing academic narratives and cultural standpoints are shaping the way education is delivered at all levels. Secularism and progressivism have crept into curriculum, pedagogy and staffroom politics, and despite there being a privileged legal place for Christianity in schools, it is the censorious mood of our age that chills the expression of Christian perspectives. 

But what should free speech mean in Education? 

Almost everyone with any common sense would agree that there should be no absolute right to free speech (and of course there isn’t in Law). Free speech also requires "translation" when applied to different contexts—what happens in the classroom must differ from what teachers or students may express in their personal time. Likewise, free speech should take a different form in higher education compared to primary and secondary schools. 

While there may be a case for it in academia or the online world, needlessly offensive or crude language has no place in the classroom. Nor should complex or controversial theories be introduced to children too young to engage in reasoned debate. And you certainly wouldn’t promote ideological materials without a balanced array of perspectives on an issue (well, that’s what you would hope!). 

The uncomfortable reality in schools is that while Christians may hold Biblical views on gender, marriage, and abortion, they operate in an awkward system that permits Christian input but denies its absolute truth. In state-funded schools, insisting on a particular perspective on such issues as ‘correct’—with implied consequences for rejecting it—may be unlawful, breaching the 1996 Education Act’s requirement for impartiality. Most Christians are acutely aware of this. 

The reality is that the dominant voices in the classroom when it comes to sensitive topics are almost always ideologically progressive. And the voices that get silenced are almost exclusively socially conservative or represent a Christian worldview. 

Christians at the Coal Face 

Kristie Higgs, a pastoral assistant, was dismissed from her role at Farmor’s School in 2019 after she made private Facebook posts criticising LGBT relationship teaching in primary schools. After six years of legal battles, she was finally vindicated at the Court of Appeal and the school was found to have discriminated against her because of her Christian beliefs. 

Dr. Bernard Randall, a Christian chaplain, lost his job at a private school and was reported to the government’s anti-terror watchdog for delivering a school chapel sermon promoting respect and open debate on identity ideologies. This was in response to the teaching of charity ‘Educate and Celebrate’ during sessions for students on ‘smashing heteronormativity’. 

In 2023, ACT surveyed Christian teachers about Relationships and Sex education, revealing responses that aligned with trends illuminated in high profile cases such as Kristie’s and Bernard’s. 30% of respondents stated that their curriculum taught gender identity as fact, while only 31% reported a ‘balance of opinions’ in the curriculum when discussing contentious topics like abortion and feminism. Many respondents' schools engaged extensively with ideological groups and their materials, such as Stonewall and Mermaids. 

But what was perhaps most illuminating was some of the qualitative information given by Christian teachers : 

I was expected to deliver material on Sex education that did not include any reference to marriage, even as one option amongst several. 

I was asked to teach PSHE/RSE avoiding heteronormative language and to celebrate and affirm underage sex and to encourage children to explore their sexuality. I made an official complaint and the school hired a barrister to investigate me. The barrister reported I was unfit to teach PSHE/RSE and would need further training. 

I was allowed not to teach elements of RSE due to my beliefs. 

There is the playing of all sorts of YouTube videos to illustrate points or introduce non-traditional views on sexuality, such as testimonies of young people with multiple sexual partners from a young age portrayed as an excepted norm and something to be considered as unproblematic 

Staff have been told in training that children are whatever gender they want to be, and this is portrayed as the only legitimate view that can be held within school. 

A big concern of mine is the view of many colleagues of Christianity as a white male oppressor religion (despite the picture of faith in Africa or Catholic Church congregations saying the opposite). 

So whilst it appears that progressive views on various issues appear to be welcomed, more conservative perspectives, including Christian views, are often prohibited- even if they express those views in a moderate, restrained manner and within a balanced framework. And the revelation that Christians are sometimes stopped from teaching certain topics because of their beliefs is surely cause for alarm. Are traditional Biblical views permitted a ’place at the table’ alongside other ideologies? The answer according to statutory provision is ‘yes’, but in practice, this is not necessarily the case. 

So how should we navigate concerns about free speech in education?  

There are a few things I think we should take away by way of application 

1. Remember that free speech is a privilege, which we value but cannot demand 

God has been very good to Christians over many years- particularly in the realm of education.  Christians should honour the significant impact of churches and individuals within state schools over hundreds of years. Opportunities to speak about Christianity in assemblies, clubs, and RE are still protected by law—an expression of God’s kindness. But the Bible doesn’t guarantee Christians the right to free speech—in fact, it suggests the opposite. Jesus calls His followers to a life where persecution is expected. 

“Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.” (John 15:20) 

2. We must value AND make use of our privilege 

Although we mustn’t expect this privilege, we must be willing to defend it. If Christianity’s strong statutory status were lost to secularism in schools, we wouldn’t gain neutrality but simply replace one belief system with another. This is already happening in schools where they do not fulfil their obligations. The legal requirements for RE and collective worship allow young people to explore Christianity’s truth claims, a sound educational practice given our Christian heritage and its status as a major world religion. It may be a case of ‘use it or lose it,’ and with many schools functionally secular and struggling with religious illiteracy, it could be a lifeline if local churches supported schools in delivering assemblies and RE lessons. 

3. We must use our privilege wisely 

When discussing free speech, it easy to go into ‘culture wars’ mode. But as Christians, we are called to higher standards. We should not be deterred from speaking by making ourselves unpopular, much as Jesus didn’t make popularity a goal. But nor should we offend for offences sake. Ephesians 4:29 says “Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouths”. Indeed, there are many watching our witness and speaking the truth in love is the Christian virtue of the moment if we are to win hearts to Christ and help influence society for good. 

Ultimate consequences 

My heart sank when I heard that in her first act as Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Philipson was to revoke the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. The act was a vital piece of legislation protecting open debate and the free exchange of ideas for students and academics.  

Thankfully, after much pressure, the government did a partial ‘U turn’ on the Act I had been so concerned about. The DfE confirmed in January that it would proceed, albeit with unspecified amendments. I’m pleased but not entirely convinced that what William Hague described as ‘comfort blankets of cancellation’ will be decisively shown the door. 

Whatever we think of his political ideals, Kirk was thoroughly committed to the respectful exchange of ideas, especially in educational institutions where left-wing ideology often dominated. His worldview was shaped by his evangelical Christian faith, and his combination of open dialogue with bold proclamation of Biblical truth is an example Christians should take seriously, albeit with adaptations that meet our own cultural moment in the UK.  

Charlie Kirk’s story is a sobering reminder that speech must also be exercised wisely. Kirk was often maligned, branded a facist or even a Nazi—accusations for which there was no evidence—and ultimately he paid the highest price for his willingness to speak with conviction. There is no place for gross misrepresentation, exaggeration or unfettered hyperbole. Not all left wing activists are ‘Marxists’ and not all reform supports are ‘hard right’. We must temper our language and seek truth in what we speak- and this must be our mandate as teachers too. 

By shaping the classroom’s political climate, teachers subtly define what students see as reasonable speech. With impartiality sidelined, we risk raising a generation unable to engage with differing views—or one that rebels in extreme ways. Avoiding perspectives that aren’t “à la mode” only fosters a centralised approach to accepted speech, eroding diversity of thought, freedom of expression, and ultimately, free speech itself. In the worst-case scenario, we may close the door to many faithful and gifted Christian teachers, and potentially the gospel. 

 And what a heinous disservice to our nation’s children that would be.