8 May 2025 | Europe and Central Asia, Hungary, News and features
This week, academics from all over Europe are gathering at the Times Higher Education Europe Universities Summit in Budapest.
The conference has the strapline, “Pairing higher education excellence with world-leading research and innovation” and professors and academics including a pro-vice chancellor of Oxford University Anne Trefethen are speaking.
So far, so dull. Except behind the headlines, this appears to be an expensive exercise in academia washing, with Times Higher Education having struck a deal with the Hungarian government to rehabilitate the reputation of Hungary’s universities, with the conference seemingly being a key part of that strategy.
This is a tale of once-respected institutions being captured by power and money. Ancient Hungarian universities taken over by the cronies of an autocratic government that wants to control what is taught and researched, and a respected and once independent UK higher education magazine, bought by a private equity company keen to monopolise on the magazine’s most valuable asset – its global universities ranking list. The biggest losers: those who believe in academic freedom.
Hungary has been under increasingly autocratic rule since the leader of the Fidesz party, Viktor Orbán, became prime minister in 2010. Orbán has spent the past 15 years bringing independent institutions in the country under the control of his party. Public broadcast channels have been turned into propaganda machines and oligarchs with ties to the government have bought up most private media outlets. According to the latest country report from Reporters Without Borders (RSF), those oligarchs now own 80% of the media.
Orbán and his party have now turned their attention to universities. In 2017, Orbán’s first move was to pass a law (subsequently found to be unlawful under EU legislation) that effectively banned the Central European University from operating in Hungary. The CEU’s main crime was to be independent, a US institution and founded by the financier George Soros.
Orbán then turned his attention to troublesome domestic universities. In 2021, the government transferred 11 state universities and billions of euros of state assets to asset management “foundations” run by loyalists of the Fidesz party. Orbán claimed that this guaranteed the independence of state universities, while most people saw the move as a way of giving Fidesz loyalists a stranglehold on academia. Another slew of universities were later “foundationalised”, meaning they are also now managed and funded by foundations rather than directly by the state, and the small number of public universities remaining in Hungary are now starved of funds. For academic freedom, foundationalisation was disastrous. Hungary’s universities have plummeted to the bottom 20 to 30% of this year’s Academic Freedom Index (along with Chad, Libya, Vietnam and Djibouti).
The takeover and asset stripping of most of Hungary’s state universities by friends of the government set the country on a collision course with the EU. In early 2023, the European Commission excluded 21 of the privatised universities (though not individual academics) from EU Horizon Europe funding for research and innovation, and from Erasmus+ funding for academic mobility, over concerns around corruption and public procurement. Hungary challenged the ruling, but in December 2024, the European Commission upheld its decision. Increasingly isolated and now a pariah in the academic world, the Hungarian government desperately needed help to rehabilitate the image of its universities.
The Times Higher Education (THE) Supplement has an illustrious history. It was founded in 1971 and was a sister paper to the Times Educational Supplement (TES), part of The Times stable. The first editor Brian MacArthur recruited some of the most talented young journalists of their generation including Christopher Hitchens, Peter Hennessy, David Henke and Robin McKie to report on the growing university and polytechnic sector in the UK.
With the early 1990s, came university league tables. By 2019, and several venture capital owners later, THE was carved out from the TES family and taken over by the private equity company Inflexion. Why? Because THE’s Global University Rankings had become big business, influencing everything from university funding and student numbers to UK student visas. There is a lot of money to be made in offering consultancy to universities to help them improve their place in the rankings, or in the words of THE’s website: “we have experienced a growing demand for bespoke, practical insights to help universities and governments alike drive strategic planning and growth across a range of interests in higher education.”
In April 2024, the Hungarian government’s Ministry of Culture and Innovation and THE signed a “groundbreaking deal” . THE, under the leadership of its chief global affairs officer Phil Baty, said it was going to “carry out a detailed analysis of Hungary’s higher education system, analysing its current performance and benchmarking it with successful global education hubs based on THE’s gold standard World University Rankings and review this in light of the ministry’s ambitions”.
Hungary’s Minister of Culture and Innovation Balázs Hankó was more explicit, saying the aspiration was to increase the number of foreign students at Hungarian universities, and have a Hungarian university in the world’s top 100 by 2030. Luckily for Hungary, academic freedom is not one of the measures used in THE’s rankings system.
THE’s deal with Hungary did receive some attention but only on specialist websites such as University World News, which highlight the conflict of interest between running a rankings system and a consultancy to help universities improve their rankings. THE is not the only rankings organisation to do this; QS also run a rankings system and consultancy, but in THE’s case there’s a potential further conflict because the company still publishes an online magazine which is one of the most trusted sources of information in the higher education sector, especially in the UK. Additionally, THE has also recently acquired Inside Higher Ed and Poets&Quants, both large US-based higher education publishers and sources of news.
A research paper by King’s College from 2022, From newspaper supplement to data company: Tracking rhetorical change in the Times Higher Education’s rankings coverage, tracked how over the past 20 years, THE had gradually prioritised being a data company over a journalistic outlet. And what chance is there of THE’s editorial team now running an exposé of Hungary’s university system? Very little, I believe. In fact, in November 2024, THE ran a sympathetic interview with Hungary’s culture minister Hankó without mentioning the contract he had signed with THE’s consultancy arm only months before. However, a cursory search of “Hungary” on THE’s online archive does bring up some past articles that report on and scrutinise the country’s free expression landscape, including a piece from 2017 on the state of higher education in Hungary, and a piece from 2021 on the repercussions of the university privatisation scheme.
Should professors and academics from Oxford and Durham universities and King’s College London be participating in what amounts to an academia-washing exercise by THE and the Hungarian government in Budapest this week? I don’t think so. Ironically, THE columnist Eric Heinze was in two minds about attending a conference about free speech in Hungary back in 2017.
While some in the field believe it is valid for individual universities to buy consultancy services from rankings organisations like THE to help them smooth out problems such as data organisation or ensuring consistent spellings of their name, THE collaborating with authoritarian governments, which have sought to control what their universities can teach, is surely of a different order. What is the point of universities if they are not institutions that can decide their own research and teaching programmes, independent of the government and government appointees?
And surely universities which score badly in the Academic Freedom Index shouldn’t be in the rankings at all. As Donald Trump tries to wrest control of universities in the USA (which regularly top the rankings) and Chinese universities are increasingly shooting up the tables, academic freedom is going to become an increasing issue.
THE is a trusted source of news in higher education, as is the US equivalent, Inside Higher Education. But there’s a threat to independent journalism, and academic freedom, when the company that owns these magazines collaborates with countries like Hungary, which consistently try to control freedom of expression.
Index on Censorship contacted the Times Higher Education (THE) Supplement press office for comment but aside from an automated acknowledgement email, it did not respond by the time of publishing.
28 Apr 2025 | Asia and Pacific, India, News and features, Volume 54.01 Spring 2025
This article first appeared in Volume 54, Issue 1 of our print edition of Index on Censorship, titled The forgotten patients: Lost voices in the global healthcare system, published on 11 April 2025. Read more about the issue here.
When a 31-year-old trainee doctor was found raped and murdered at RG Kar Medical College in the east Indian state of Kolkata last August, outrage swept across the campus. She had fallen asleep in a seminar room after a 36-hour shift and her body was discovered the next day.
Students and other women poured into the streets in their thousands to demand justice, but their voices were quickly stifled. Police detained them, and those who spoke out found themselves under scrutiny.
The incident was not an aberration. For many in the country, this tragedy accentuated an unsettling truth: in India’s universities, victims of sexual assault – and those who support them – are often silenced.
Despite laws designed to protect women from harassment, many students and activists say the country’s universities have systemic flaws that allow sexual violence to persist.
Across India, students, activists and faculty members describe a culture where voices challenging sexual violence are suppressed to protect the institutions’ reputations.
Shabnam Hashmi, a prominent activist based in New Delhi, believes this silencing reflects India’s deep-rooted patriarchy, worsened by institutional apathy and the government’s preference for symbolic gestures over substantive change.
“Until we challenge the structures that protect perpetrators and shame victims, nothing will change,” she said. “Real change begins not only with enforcing laws but with reshaping how we view honour and accountability.”
She added that even if victims spoke out, they – not the perpetrators – were held responsible.
In Indian society, victims of sexual harassment often face intense scrutiny and blame while perpetrators are shielded by deeply entrenched patriarchal norms. Instead of holding the harasser accountable, society frequently shifts its focus to the victim, questioning her behaviour, clothing or character. Social honour is often tied to women’s bodies, leading survivors to prioritise reputation over justice and discouraging them from speaking out.
Institutional silence
Riya (not her real name), a student at a private university in Haryana, knows firsthand the consequences of speaking up. After a classmate pressured her into sharing intimate photos and then blackmailed her, she wanted to report him. But fear stopped her.
“I was scared [the authorities] would see me as the problem,” she told Index. “I didn’t think they would help me. My family would have been humiliated and people would just talk.”
Her fears had a strong basis. Even though the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (PoSH) Act mandates that all institutions should establish internal complaints committees (ICCs) to handle cases of sexual harassment, many universities either do not have these committees or fail to give them meaningful authority.
“PoSH committees usually only make recommendations,” Hashmi said. “They are expected to take action, but the administration often intervenes to protect the institution’s image.”
This leaves victims with limited avenues for recourse, and for many students the price of speaking out is simply too high.
The problem extends beyond insufficient resources and into a broader culture of institutional suppression. At Delhi University, external ICC member Vibha Chaturvedi said that many students didn’t know how to navigate the complaints process – and when they did, they were often discouraged.
“There is an incredible reluctance to go through the formal process,” she said. “Students fear retaliation, ridicule and even academic penalties if they come forward.”
Tanisha (not her real name), a student from a prestigious college in Maharashtra, recalls her ordeal with a professor who sexually harassed her.
“I was terrified to report him,” she said. “I thought no one would believe me, and the college would protect him. I was very scared. I thought they would think it was somehow my fault, because that is the usual response everywhere.”
The concern over protecting the institution’s image is so pervasive that students are often actively discouraged from making complaints in the first place.
“From students to faculty to administration, everyone indirectly suggests against raising formal complaints,” Tanisha said.
Symbolic policies
The government’s approach to women’s safety in recent years has been marked by high-profile initiatives, such as the Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao (Save the Girl Child, Educate the Girl Child) campaign, which has now been running for a decade. Its aim is to reduce gender discrimination and to educate people about gender bias. Yet critics argue that these campaigns prioritise optics over action. Nearly 80% of its funds have been spent on media campaigns, with limited impact on ground-level support for women’s safety.
“These policies are just slogans,” said Hashmi. “They are meant to make it look like something’s being done [but have no] follow-through.
“We are seeing more censorship, more silencing of dissent and an overall lack of prioritisation for women’s safety. It’s a culture of complicity, where the perpetrator is shielded and the victim is blamed.”
Hashmi believes the government’s reluctance to seriously address harassment stems from a larger resistance to challenging patriarchy.
“These are just symbolic gestures by a government that is itself intrinsically conservative and anti-women, and doesn’t believe in their freedom or freedom of expression,” she said.
India faces severe challenges in safeguarding women against sexual harassment and violence, and despite more than 30,000 cases of reported rape every year, low conviction rates hinder their safety and justice. Slow judicial processes prevent many survivors from pursuing charges, while delayed trials often result in insufficient evidence and witness withdrawal, making convictions rare.
Legislative measures such as the 2013 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, which introduced harsher penalties for sexual violence, have not translated into consistent enforcement.
The situation has grown worse under prime minister Narendra Modi’s administration, many activists argue, as political attention on women’s safety has waned.
“We are seeing more censorship, more silencing and an overall dismissal of women’s safety as a priority,” said Hashmi. “It’s a climate of fear and complicity.”
The cost of challenging harassment can be high. For Riya, the student from Haryana, simply sharing her story with friends took courage – and she still feels haunted by the experience.
“I want to tell others to speak up, but I understand why they don’t,” she said. “It is like you are putting yourself on trial. The shame is on us, even when we are the ones hurt.”
Mary E John, co-head of the Saksham Task Force, knows all too well the delicate balance of power that exists within academic institutions. Established by the government in 2013 in response to the brutal 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder of a medical student, the task force aims to enhance safety for women on campuses and promote gender sensitivity.
She emphasised the hesitance many students felt when confronted with the daunting task of lodging complaints against their institutions.
“Students often feel they lack independence when they have to complain against the institution’s power dynamics,” she told Index. This fear of retaliation, she notes, often leads to silence.
The challenges for victims escalate when the alleged harassers hold positions of power, such as professors or administrators. Different power dynamics in academic institutions prevent student survivors from reporting harassment.
“I am terrified my grades would suffer, or people would think I am exaggerating,” Tanisha said.
As university campuses continue to grapple with the pervasive issue of sexual harassment, it is clear that a seismic shift in cultural attitudes and institutional responses is long overdue.
The increasing number of heinous cases of sexual harassment on campuses and subsequent protests may have sparked national conversations, but they have rarely translated into tangible action. The cycle only repeats itself.
16 Sep 2021 | Awards, Fellowship, Fellowship 2021, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/q3_g9rQvgyA”][vc_column_text]Arif Ahmed is a free speech activist and a fellow of Gonville & Caius College at the University of Cambridge.
In March 2020, Ahmed proposed alterations to the Statement of Free Speech at Cambridge. The proposed amendments were created to make the legislation “clearer and more liberal.” He aimed to protect university campuses as places of innovation and invention. That requires protecting the right to freely and safely challenge received wisdom.
The first amendment replaces the demand for “respect” for the opinions of others with “tolerance.” The second and third amendments preserve free speech of outside speakers and events. They also contain stringent requirements to cancel events and disinvite or censor speakers.
A vote was held for the proposed amendments and they were officially passed in December 2020.
Ahmed continues to be an outspoken advocate for free speech on university campuses.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
14 May 2021 | Opinion, Ruth's blog, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116759″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]As a political obsessive, I love the Queen’s Speech in the British Parliament. It marks the beginning of the new parliamentary session. It is uniquely British with all the expected pomp and ceremony and a significant amount of pageantry. But most importantly it is a restatement of our democratic values and processes. It also sets the agenda for the year ahead and makes clear what the Government is prioritising. And unfortunately, this year there were significant concerns for those of us who care about free speech.
The Queen outlined the government’s agenda and on the face of it who could object to an Online Safety Bill or a Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill or even a Counter State Threats Bill. But, as ever, the devil is in the detail and the detail for too many of the British government’s proposals seems to have many, what I can only hope are unintended, consequences.
The draft Online Safety Bill proposes not only the establishment of a new category of unlawful speech in the UK – legal but harmful – but it also proposes outsourcing the regulation of free speech in the UK to Silicon Valley. Most concerningly there is no provision outlined which will let us know how much content has been removed – or even what has been removed. On the face of it, that might not seem that important but how would a victim know if they were vulnerable? How will police prosecute hate crime? And how we will be able to analyse how much of a threat to free speech this bill has become, if we have no idea of how much is deleted. The Government has suggested that they will fine companies for deleting too much content but there is no provision outlined which would allow them to assess the scale.
The Academic Freedom Bill will establish a ‘free speech champion’ to ensure that free speech protections are enacted on campus, but this week the Government couldn’t answer whether this would empower Holocaust deniers to speak on campus – or stop them. What’s likely to happen instead is that academic institutions will be so concerned about the fear of a fine or bad publicity that they will stop speakers attending campus full stop – the ultimate chilling effect.
These are just two examples of why Index has such significant concerns of the direction that government is taking on free speech.
To be clear, Index supports any and all efforts to protect our collective right to free speech across the globe and we expect the British government to take a global leadership role in defending Article 19. But what we’ve seen in this year’s Queen’s Speech does not give us hope – rather it seems to be a systematic assault on free expression by the British government, under the auspices of protecting free speech.
I am a former legislator; I know that you cannot, and you should not try to legislate culture or language – it will have the opposite effect. People won’t want to engage and our public spaces will become free of debate and challenge. We deserve so much better. Going forward we will seek to work with the British government to introduce additional protections for free speech, we must use our voice to protect yours.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”41669″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
