LSE 7

Interview | Oisin Mcilroy

Free speech ‘champion’ LSE accused of ‘slow, quiet repression’ by student activists, UN Special Rapporteurs  

I assumed Haley* and I would meet on campus, but she was banned from the property. Senior leadership at the London School of Economics imposed ‘precautionary measures’ on the pro-Palestine campaigner and six fellow-organisers, following their demonstration at the university’s summer school registration.

Donning keffiyehs and Palestinian flags, a dozen protestors demonstrated loudly but peacefully. They claim they ‘held banners and chanted “Disclose, Divest! We Will Not Stop; We Will Not Rest!” in the Student Service Center’ and similar LSE-related slogans. 

It was a familiar sight on campus. Some watched from windows or stopped and spoke to protesters as they passed, but it was essentially identical to the many other demonstrations which had preceded it since May, when the school’s Palestinian Society published their ‘Assets in Apartheid’ report and immediately thereafter encamped in the Marshall Building for five weeks.

The only distinguishing feature was the date – 7/7. The comparison with the July 2005 London bombings by Islamist extremists was initially made in an anonymous witness impact statement: ‘The atmosphere was extremely hostile, with a number of LSE staff members and attending students feeling distressed, fearful and alarmed. This was particularly so, given the 7 July 2024 was the anniversary of the London terror attack. Individuals genuinely feared there was a further attack taking place.’

According to reports in student newspaper The Beaver, the School ‘quoted and amplified [the 7/7 comparison] uncritically to provide the basis for serving the LSE_7 with precautionary measures.’

LSE Chief Operating Officer Dr Andrew Young denies this, claiming: ‘Someone else shared the content of the statement publicly and falsely attributed it to LSE… while we do not generally comment on the specifics of investigations, I can reiterate that LSE itself did not compare the demonstration with the 7/7 London bombings.’

On July 9, a School-wide email accused the protestors of engaging in ‘harassing and frightening’ behaviour, involving ‘tactics that intimidated fellow members of the LSE community and left them shaken and upset.’

The seven students deny these allegations.

Since July, these restrictions have prevented the ‘LSE 7’ from stepping foot on campus to attend lectures, study in the library, and even, for some time, attend GP and mental health appointments. 

That is until December 6, shortly after Haley and I’s meeting, when LSE dropped disciplinary proceedings against the seven students.

Commenting on Instagram on December 9, they announced: ‘Last Friday, LSE put an end to the draconian disciplinary process it subjected seven of its students to. 1 student’s case was dropped entirely, the other 6 received a warning.

‘This is a major win for the student movement and a huge blow for LSE.’

‘Slow, quiet repression’ of the LSE 7

Such alleged-repression of student activism at LSE is striking, not only because of its leading position in global academia, but because its encouragement of open debate has done so much to secure this position. Indeed, the renowned Good University Guide from The Times recently named it as ‘University of the Year 2025’ in large part because it ‘champions free speech’.

Haley, however, see LSE differently, partly due to their use of ‘precautionary measures’: ‘This was a strategic and political move from LSE to ban the presence of pro-Palestine students in the lead up to the summer graduation period.

‘LSE is clearly tired of having to be held accountable for its investments and decided to make this draconian move and make an example out of us to stifle dissent on campus and scare other students.’

Responding to these allegations, a spokesperson for the School said: ‘In this case, LSE commended an investigation based on multiple witness statements and extensive CCTV footage, all of which was collected and used in compliance with data protection requirements. 

‘Seven students were subject to precautionary measures, pending the investigation. The students were able to continue their studies and adjustments were made based on their requests.’

Haley rejected they had violated school policies, adding: ‘They were just looking for an excuse to discipline someone so they could set a precedent and scare other people from protesting. And I don't know why they're dragging it out so long.

She interpreted these bureaucratic procedures as being a pre-punishment itself and endemic within British academia: ‘In the US, they immediately come onto campus with state troopers and tear gas. But that legitimises demonstrations. It creates a conversation in liberal circles, they say “maybe we should look into this.”

‘The goal of the entire British system is to do this slow, quiet repression…It's bureaucratic, messy, not interesting, and you really only understand what's going on and all of the subversive corruption and bad intentions if you're in the thick of it.’

LSE denied allegations that the disciplinary process was unnecessarily cumbersome on the seven, saying: ‘The investigation was complex and thorough and took account of requests by students for adjustments to ensure they could complete their studies, meet academic deadlines, and fulfil personal arrangements some had made for the summer, such as holidays.’

There are also concerns regarding the legitimacy of how LSE polices and punishes student activism. According to CAGE International, an independent advocacy organisation, one of the ‘witness statements’ against the students came from an LSE employee who was also a member of the Harassment Management committee which imposed the ‘precautionary measures’.

When put to them, LSE chose not to respond to this allegation. 

Wider trend of free speech repression at LSE

Haley’s claims fit into a pattern of alleged and established repression of pro-Palestine discourse at the School, purportedly including the restraint of academic freedoms.

In May, the university was compelled to apologise to Professor Jim Hughes following an internal grievance procedure he initiated after a departmental blog refused to publish an article he wrote, ‘Who are the extremists?’

In a statement, LSE admitted: ‘Professor Hughes was a victim of discrimination on grounds of his anti-Zionist philosophical beliefs. We accept that mistakes were made and we will be taking urgent steps to address the issues raised in the Grievance Outcome report and to implement the panel recommendations in full.’

LSE’s repression of free speech and pro-Palestine activism has also been recognised by senior United Nations personnel.

Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese questioned LSE’s stance on Palestine and commitment to student activism: ‘Why not ensuring [sic] greater protection of its student body standing against Apartheid Israel? And why does it still maintain its ties with an Apartheid state?’

Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association Gina Romero, similarly said: ‘I have been having private conversations with [LSE] in which I reviewed it internal regulations pertinent to the past and current situation of students participating in the pro-Palestine solidarity movement.’

According to Haley, Romero has been ‘supporting us through our case’ and interviewed members of the LSE 7 for a report she compiled on worldwide university repression of pro-Palestine student activism.

LSE had no comment on these allegations.

The bottom line

Founded by socialist reformers of the Fabian Society, the history of activism at LSE is as old as the university itself. Open discussion of controversial economic and political policies continues there in many forms. Their LSE100 module, compulsory for undergraduates, aims to further these discussions by teaching students to debate constructively.

Their firm refusal to ostracise voices dissenting of progressive policies, as many prestigious universities have done, should be commended. There’s a conversation to be had over how far similar refusals in other institutions have merely sought to amplify right wing thought rather than protect open debate. With prominent pro-Palestine campaigners and leftist intellectuals recently speaking at the university however, such as Neve Gordon and Joseph Stiglitz, LSE seems largely above such concerns.

Yet the university’s senior leadership seems resolutely opposed to even the notion of a debate regarding their funding.

On June 4, LSE’s student union held a referendum, asking: ‘Should LSESU seek dialogue with LSE senior leadership to press for full and meaningful divestment from fossil fuels and weapons, including indirect investments?’

Amid the largest turnout in the university’s history (2584 total voters), the ‘YES’ vote won with 89% approval (2306 votes). 

Such dialogue is yet to occur in any notable sense, however. In October, Dr Young said a review would take place, but that it would not be directed by ‘political’ purposes: ‘Council concluded that the School would not divest if the purpose or primary effect is to make a political statement but otherwise left questions about divestment to a review of the School’s Environmental, Social, and Governance policy.

‘This review is just beginning and will take place during this academic year, with many opportunities for everyone in the LSE community to share views.’

Three months later, LSE claims this review of their ESG policy – which they highlight was ‘adopted in 2022 with the aid of student input’ – is still being undertaken.

Haley says she’s unsure why the school is so opposed to the question of divestment: ‘They've crossed lines of ethics repeatedly, openly. Investing in genocide, arguing that it's apolitical to continue investing in genocide when it's also been proven to be a poor financial investment.

‘You look at the US, roughly the top 20 universities have Israeli investments, their return is about 2 to 8%. If you just invest in the S&P 500, the one-year return on investment would be between 20 and 30%. They’re losing money.’

She doesn’t think their refusals to divest can be understood in financial terms.

LSE denies that the seven were as restricted from accessing facilities as the ‘LSE 7’ and others including their lawyers and the aforementioned United Nations Special Rapporteurs allege.

A School spokesperson said: ‘As part of precautionary measures, students were allowed access to online and in-person teaching, and wellbeing services, whether physical or psychological. They were allowed to access the Library when online material was not sufficient for them to complete their studies. Further adjustments were made for each of the students based on their requests and as needed.’

* Name changed to preserve anonymity.