On 27 October, the High Court ruled against Felix Ngole, a social work student, who was in court for a judicial review of his expulsion from his university course after he expressed his biblical beliefs about marriage during a Facebook discussion.
Reading through the court documents, it becomes clear however, that Ngole was not categorically expelled due to what he said. The situation is more complex. The judge was called to decide whether the university had, in essence, treated him fairly.
Respect for religious people
It was noted that Ngole had not been seen as ‘unteachable’ prior to the Internet postings. The court ‘attach real weight to the judicial observations … which [Ngole’s barrister] put before the court, and accept their relevance on the question of fair balance. Freedom of religious discourse is a public good of great importance and seriousness’ (paragraph 166).
In addition, the judge said: ‘…there may well be good grounds to fear more generally for the place of religious discourse, and the understanding of and respect for religious adherents, in the context of a liberal and secular consensus within universities or elsewhere’.
Being offensive
However, the judge made clear that Ngole was expelled for how he expressed his beliefs. When challenged about what he had written, he didn’t seem to have any self-awareness that what he said could be offensive. Paragraph 170 of the ruling noted that he refused to be concerned about how he was perceived and asserted that, due to his religious freedom of speech, his behaviour was therefore none of the university’s business. If this hadn’t happened, the outcome may have been very different (paragraph 172).
Ngole wasn’t offered a ‘warning’ for his actions, as those interviewing him said they didn’t see him taking on board any of the criticisms made of the decision to post in the way he did. They believed he would do it again, and did not appear to reflect upon what they’d said. The use of the words ‘abomination, detestable, wicked, hate and judge’ were deemed, even by a sympathetic reader of the posts, not to infer a ‘benevolent religious context or a personally empathetic poster’ (paragraph 91).
He had signed a 20-point Student Entry Agreement confirming that he had accessed and read the student guidance on standards of conduct and ethics. This included: ‘not allow[ing] my views about a person’s lifestyle… sexuality… to prejudice my interaction with service users and I will be mindful of the fact that my conduct outside the programme of study may compromise my entitlement to complete the programme.’
Professional conduct
The MA Social Work Student Handbook included a section on the use of social media and concluded with the warning that the student’s personal life also needed to be conducted in a professional manner, and that ‘comments made by students on social networking sites have in the past been the subject of disciplinary proceedings’. These guidelines were ‘ambiguous’, it was argued. It was noted that these were formulated so as not to be overly prescriptive about social media use.
University vindicated
The court upheld that the university was honestly and rationally seeking to evaluate him. The university maintained that the concerns were not about him holding the beliefs in and of themselves, it was the manner and form of the expression, not the content itself that was the problem (paragraphs 46 and 169). The link between these two is what ‘needs to be tested for legal relevance’.
