More Than 300 Complaints. None Upheld at Abertay

Abertay University’s investigation into a criminology lecture held on 28 October 2025 has now been published. Its conclusion is clear. The inclusion of an external speaker from Justice for Innocent Men Scotland was considered appropriate in the context of the module and the topic. The complaints were not upheld.

The report is available here: Abertay University – External Speaker Complaint Report (28 October 2025).

Coverage of the controversy appeared in outlets including The Courier (paywall) and The National (paywall). Much of that coverage foregrounded the scale of the reaction. The investigation allows a closer look at its source.

More than 300 complaints and responses were submitted. That figure quickly became the headline. The breakdown is more revealing. Approximately 86% came from external individuals or organisations. A much smaller proportion came from within the university itself.

Only one formal complaint came from a student who had been present in the class. Anonymous feedback from two others was passed on separately. On the university’s own figures, what was later presented as objection from within the room was, in substance, driven from outside it.

The students who were in the lecture describe something notably less dramatic than the public reaction that followed. They reported that the session focused on the criminal justice system and advocacy for fair trials. They described it as fairly standard and appropriate within a criminology module. They also said they did not recognise the way the lecture was later portrayed online. Some said the fallout had a negative impact on them. That evidence bears directly on what the investigation was meant to establish: what actually happened in the room.

The report does not suggest the university’s processes were complete. It identifies gaps. There was no formal process for approving external speakers, and no guidance on how potentially controversial contributions should be handled. Both had been left to individual academic judgment.

The recommendations are practical. They include clearer use of trigger warnings, a defined process for external speakers, and a published position on freedom of expression. These are forward-looking changes. They do not alter the finding on the complaints themselves.

Earlier coverage drew heavily on external responses and campaign reaction, and often treated that reaction as if it reflected the experience of those in the lecture. Reports referred to reputational consequences, public criticism, and actions taken in response to pressure, including vandalism and calls for disciplinary action, as reported by The Courier. Coverage in The National similarly framed the event in strongly critical terms.

The investigation records something narrower. Most responses came from outside the university. Within the class itself, there was one formal complaint and limited additional feedback.

The Students’ Association collated 89 further pieces of feedback from an open meeting. That forms part of the wider reaction. It is not the same as direct complaint from those who were present in the lecture. Treating those categories as interchangeable risks overstating what occurred in the room.

This distinction matters. It separates the event itself from the reaction that followed it.

Criticism can be reported. No serious account of public controversy would exclude it. The difficulty arises when external reaction, repeated often enough, comes to stand in for the event itself. At that point, the later findings of a formal process do not so much correct the record as sit alongside a narrative that has already taken hold.

The university addressed the question it set out to answer. It did not attempt to resolve every wider disagreement surrounding the lecture or those involved in it. It examined whether the lecture itself was inappropriate in its context. Its answer was no.

The remaining question lies elsewhere. How a public account forms, and how it is sustained, even when a formal review reaches a different conclusion. This case does not resolve that question. It does, however, make it visible.

Further Reading

When Outrage Replaces Inquiry: The Abertay Episode and Scotland’s Fear of Free Thought
Abertay Didn’t Defend Academic Freedom — It Walked Away From It
When Graffiti Replaces Argument: Scotland’s Struggle With Free Inquiry
When Research Becomes Heresy: The Paradox of Dr Stuart Waiton and JIMS