Documents seen by the BBC indicate Sheffield Hallam University came under sustained pressure in China aimed at stopping research into alleged forced labour in Xinjiang. Staff in-country reported visits from individuals they believed were from China’s National Security Service, and access to Hallam’s websites from China was blocked from August 2022, disrupting recruitment and operations. After holding back a final report in late 2024 and telling Professor Laura Murphy in early 2025 she could not continue China-facing supply chain work, the university has since apologised and said she may resume.

The commercial hit was predictable and measurable. Internal emails cited by the BBC show the university earned £3.8m from China and Hong Kong in 2021/22, admitted around 500 students from China in 2018, and feared a boycott by applicants and agents after official criticism. Chinese access to Hallam’s sites and email was disabled, and an English-language testing portal used by prospective students was temporarily shut. Managers recorded a negative impact on 2023/24 recruitment with further decline expected in 2024/25; only 73 students from China enrolled in 2024/25.

Murphy, a professor of human rights and contemporary slavery, built a profile tracing global supply chains for signs of Uyghur forced labour. After a 2021 report on the solar industry, her team published further work on cotton and automotive parts that can reach Western consumers. In 2021 the Helena Kennedy Centre publicly praised her output; by early 2025 the unit was shut. The Chinese Embassy in London rejects the research as flawed and politically driven, noting some authors received US funding; Murphy has disclosed grants over her career from US and UK public bodies for anti-slavery and supply chain work. Beijing denies any crimes against humanity in Xinjiang.

An internal risk summary dated 9 December 2024, referenced by the BBC, details three visits by security officers to Hallam’s China office. A local staff member was questioned for two hours, the tone described as threatening, and officials linked China-side internet problems to the presence of Uyghur material on Hallam’s site. According to the same document, after Hallam signalled in September 2024 it would not publish a final phase of research, relations improved and the perceived threat to staff eased. The university says such messages reflect context rather than policy.

In early 2025 administrators told Murphy she could not continue research into China-linked supply chains and asked to vet external engagements for conflicts. She began legal action under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 and filed a subject access request; she argues the papers show the university traded academic freedom for access to Chinese student income. Hallam disputes that interpretation, says China is not a significant market for the institution, and has apologised to Murphy while confirming she can proceed. The university also says it is normal practice for research groups to stand down when external contracts end, and it returned unused funds tied to the shelved project. Murphy is not currently pursuing the legal claim following the apology.

A separate legal dispute raised the stakes. Smart Shirts Ltd, a Hong Kong garment supplier, sued over a December 2023 Hallam report. In December 2024 a preliminary High Court ruling found the publication defamatory at common law. The university says insurers then withdrew cover for any defamation, libel or slander claims linked to its Social and Economic Research Institute, leaving it unable to secure professional indemnity for contested work. A full trial has yet to take place, at which Hallam will be able to defend the report’s claims.

When ministers were briefed, Foreign Secretary David Lammy warned his Chinese counterpart that the UK would not tolerate attempts to suppress academic freedom, according to the BBC. The matter was also raised with China’s most senior education official. The University and College Union called Hallam’s initial stance incredibly worrying and urged stronger protections for researchers. The Chinese Embassy said there are over 200,000 Chinese students in the UK and framed educational ties as a positive driver, while maintaining that claims of forced labour are false. Baroness Helena Kennedy KC, patron of the centre, warned that dependence on Chinese fee income leaves UK universities vulnerable; she has been sanctioned by China for her advocacy on Xinjiang.

For retail investors and university finance directors, this case reads like a sector-wide stress test: concentration risk in one student market, market access risk when platforms or websites are blocked, litigation exposure from supply chain allegations, and an insurance gap that can freeze activity. A July 2024 internal email put it plainly: trying to retain business in China and publishing contentious research had become untenable bedfellows. That friction stems from a funding model that leans on international fees while research remains global and sometimes politically sensitive.

Practical steps exist. Diversify recruitment so no single country dominates a cohort. Treat market access as an operational risk: mirror critical student services, keep alternative enrolment routes ready, and plan for DNS or firewall blocks. Build robust pre-publication legal review for high-risk reports, confirm indemnity limits in advance, and engage insurers early. Set clear, public red lines on academic freedom so overseas offices, partners and underwriters understand the framework before pressure arrives.

What to watch next is straightforward. First, whether the pending libel case tightens or loosens professional indemnity appetite for research units across the sector. Second, how the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 is applied in future disputes. Third, whether China-origin enrolments stabilise or slide further in 2025/26. Hallam’s apology is a reset; the real test is whether governance and risk budgets now match the rhetoric.