Over the past decade, British universities have eagerly imported the American culture wars. Now, the UK seems to be in danger of importing the Trumpian “cure”. Earlier this week, Reform UK’s Head of Policy, Zia Yusuf, warned Bangor University that it would lose funding under a Nigel Farage-led government if its Debating and Political Society continued to ban speakers from the populist party.

“Bangor University have banned Reform and called us ‘racist, transphobic and homophobic’,” he posted on X. “I am sure they won’t mind losing every penny of that state funding under a Reform government. After all, they wouldn’t want a racist’s money would they?”

It is, of course, the height of irony that a debating society is unwilling to debate the political ideas of a now-mainstream party. But quite apart from the university’s attempts to distance itself from the society’s decision, Yusuf’s threat raises a broader question: to what extent would a Reform government emulate the Trump administration’s punitive approach to higher education?

Yusuf’s words are remarkably similar to the “defund and discipline” strategy employed by Donald Trump since he returned to office last year. Federal funding has been withheld from Ivy League institutions such as Harvard, Cornell and Columbia, ostensibly in response to student activism but also amid claims that university leaders have been insufficiently forceful in confronting antisemitism.

It’s true that the scale and aggressiveness of student political activism in the US had become untenable. Yet Trump’s strategy has left some questioning his commitment to freedom of speech for those on the other side of the political aisle.

Yusuf may be making the same mistake, and he should remember that Trump’s actions are not popular with British voters. Of course, a publicly funded institution should not ban a sitting Member of Parliament — in this case, Runcorn and Helsby MP Sarah Pochin. But it’s not the institution, merely the debating society, which is run by a small number of pupils. Bangor University should no doubt punish the society in some way, but that’s as far as it should go.

What’s more, Government intervention of this nature is unnecessary, as protocols already exist. In March last year, the Office for Students (OfS) fined the University of Sussex £585,000 for failing to uphold freedom of speech when Professor Kathleen Stock was hounded out of the institution for her gender-critical views.

Withdrawing public funding from a university — especially one as small as Bangor University — would likely force it to close outright; even the suggestion of such action could be enough to deter private investors in favour of safer, more predictable partners. As Reform UK edges closer to power, it’s increasingly important that its leaders recognise that public statements are not cost-free gestures but instead signals with real-world consequences. Bangor is not Harvard, but the principle at stake is the same. Freedom of speech is becoming steadily more fragile, threatened from both Left and Right alike. The state should act as its guarantor, not as yet another belligerent adversary.

---

David James is deputy head at a leading independent school in London, and also teaches at a local state school.

drdavidajames

---