The University of Essex said it could only take action when informed by students of complaints. It said it encouraged “open and frank discussions in our seminars” and this included “convening difficult and sometimes uncomfortable conversations”.

The university said The Underground Railroad had only been removed from one reading list for a module on the development of the novel form for creative writing students. It added that this decision was partly made because “another book was viewed as better suited to the learning aims”. A spokesman said the book was still available in the university library, remained an option for future reading lists, and that students were exposed to the violence of slavery in other modules, including ones that could be taken by students on the same undergraduate course. He added the university used content warnings because ‘“we find it helpful and considerate to tell students about the issues that might come up in books or plays they are reading”.

The Times FOI requests to universities asked for details about any texts removed from reading lists since 2019 because of concerns about their content.

At the University of Exeter, there also appears to have been hesitation about exposing students to the horrors of slavery. In its FOI response, it stated that undergraduate students of late 18th and early 19th century literature are told they can choose not to read The History of Mary Prince as it “contains graphic accounts of racism, slavery, and extreme violence”. Students are warned about the content and, if any are concerned, they “are encouraged to contact the convenor to discuss alternatives”. A spokesman said no students had done so to date.

History students learning about the trans-Atlantic slave trade at Lancaster University are informed they can opt out of reading The Diary of Thomas Thistlewood because the text, which is a key testimony from a slave owner in Jamaica admitting to brutality, “contains detail regarding sexual assaults and extreme violence”. A spokeswoman for the university said this was the only text students could choose not to read without facing an academic penalty and no student has taken this option in the five years it has been taught.

Daina Ramey Berry, an expert on slavery and dean of humanities at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said: “What concerns me most is the desire to downplay, to sanitise, to soften the history of enslavement. There are real people who did these brutal things. It is important for people to know this happened and those people existed.”

Classic play removed and Charlie Hebdo branded ‘bigoted’

The University of Sussex’s FOI response stated that Miss Julie had been “permanently withdrawn” from an undergraduate literature module because it contains discussion of suicide. It stated that the decision was made after students complained about the potential “psychological” and “emotional effects” of the material. Miss Julie can be studied at A-level and is regularly performed across the UK.

At the same university, Kathleen Stock, the philosopher, resigned last year as a professor after being accused of transphobia and facing abuse because of her views on sex and gender.

Jack Ross studied at Sussex until 2019 and was president of the Conservative students society. He said: “I had a professor who informed the class that the Iraq war happened because white people wanted to kill brown people, and no one was able to challenge him. When another lecturer described Israel as aggressors, I put my hand up and said the situation was more complex than that and he started crying. I felt that I had to play the game to get good marks.”

Ross’s girlfriend at the time studied biology at Sussex and her teacher used a picture of Donald Trump to illustrate a cancer cell. “Why should politics come into biology teaching? It felt like there was constant brainwashing,” he said.

James Noble, a Conservative activist who completed a biochemistry PHD at Sussex University in 2019, said restrictions on freedom of speech on the campus had become “insidious”, adding: “It particularly affects students doing BAs in arts subjects. Some students have felt they got lower marks when expressing views that were different to the lecturers.”

The University of Sussex said it had “vigorously and unequivocally” defended Stock’s right to academic freedom and lawful freedom of speech. Its spokeswoman said all courses have books that are optional, as well as required reading, adding: “We will always encourage critical thinking and robust debate in the classroom, no matter how challenging, whilst also ensuring we support our students’ well being.”

The spokeswoman said the wording of the FOI response was incorrect and the removal of the text from a module reading list was temporary. She said the decision was in response to concerns following student suicides, that staff expected the text to be reinstated by next year, and that it has always remained on campus, including in the university’s library.

At Nottingham Trent University, students of French have been told they no longer have to study the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was the target of an Islamic terrorist attack in 2015 which killed 12 people, including journalists of the magazine and a police officer.

While there were no complaints about the material, academic staff decided that viewing the magazine should be optional as it is “racist, sexist, bigoted, Islamophobic”. In its FOI response, the university stated that making this text optional was a “permanent decision”. A spokesman did not respond to requests for further comment.

Prize-winning novels by women ‘particularly challenging’

At some universities, there appears to be particular concern about exposing students to themes covered by modern female novelists.

At Aberdeen, students on a course titled Vulnerable Bodies, Precarious Lives can choose not to read three of the course texts because they “may be particularly challenging” and include graphic depictions of sexual violence and suicide. Instead, they are offered alternatives.

The university’s FOI response stated that the course was designed with these options in mind and, while there had been no complaints about the novels, there had been “multiple conversations over the years with individual students who expressed concerns about these particular issues”.

The books that students can choose not to study are: All the Birds, Singing by Evie Wyld; A Girl is a Half-formed Thing by Eimear McBride; and Freshwater by Akwaeke Emezi.

At the same university, English students enrolled on a module about Geoffrey Chaucer and medieval writing can opt out of discussions about the content as it “sometimes entails engagement with topics that you may find emotionally challenging”.

A spokesman said alternative texts were offered “in a small number of optional courses” where the primary texts included sexual violence, as this can be deeply upsetting, depending on readers’ personal experiences.

They are also given content warnings that Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream “contains classism” and that The Classic Fairy Tales contains “cruelty to animals and animal death”.

A spokesman said its content warnings policy was developed with student representatives and enables staff “to explore controversial topics that could otherwise be difficult to address in an inclusive and supportive environment”.

At other British universities, academics have provided students with trigger warnings before studying The Bible, because of “shocking sexual violence”, and Oliver Twist, because of “child abuse”.

At Warwick, modern languages students are told they can choose not to read course texts including the German novels Die Mittagsfrau by Julia Franck, and Tomboy by Thomas Meinecke, which have been deemed to “gesture to provocative issues”. The novels are both on the reading list for a module titled Gender Trouble in Contemporary Germany and students can request alternatives.

In its FOI response, the university said this was a temporary decision “while we reflect on how best to incorporate difficult material into modules”. A spokesman said the university believes students should be exposed to challenging ideas. He added it does not ask departments to issue content warnings and less than one per cent of the university’s curriculum includes them.

Push to ‘decolonise’ the curriculum

The findings come after a report last month revealed that the number of students supporting restrictions on free speech on campuses has risen sharply in six years.

The study, from the Higher Education Policy Institute, compared the views of 1,000 full-time undergraduates to a previous cohort and found that many more now want to be protected from difficult viewpoints.

The Office for Students regulator has also reported that last year 193 speakers and events were rejected at English universities, a rise from 94 in 2019-20. Susan Lapworth, interim chief executive, told of her concern about the possibility that lawful but challenging views are being stifled.

In order for students from minority groups to feel better represented on campuses, there has been a growing student-led movement to “decolonise” education.

While this is meant to broaden academic study to incorporate different critical perspectives, there have been concerns about it resulting in historically significant texts being sacrificed.

Last year, the University of Leicester announced plans to stop teaching medieval literature to its English students because of “a drop in demand”, and instead offer a “decolonised” curriculum which is “excitingly innovative”, with more study of subjects such as sexuality, race and diversity.

Professor Isobel Armstrong, a fellow of the British Academy, resigned as an external examiner for the university as a result, writing at the time: “The work of diversifying the curriculum is an urgent challenge which all periods and subject areas in the humanities must step up to meet together: it is not advanced by narrowing provision.”

Gavin Williamson, then the education secretary, also appeared to criticise the decision, saying universities “should not, whether for ideological reasons or to conform to the perceived desires of students, pressure or force teaching staff to drop authors or texts that add rigour and stretch to a course”.

Last month it emerged that Danielle Greyman, a recent graduate, was suing the University of Leeds for wrongly failing an essay she wrote because it did not criticise Israel. The essay, about crimes committed by Hamas terrorists against Palestinians, was initially criticised for not also referencing violence from Israel, but it was later reviewed on appeal by an external examiner and upgraded to a pass. The review took almost a year so Greyman was unable to take up a place on a Master’s course. Her lawyers have accused the university of negligence, discrimination and victimisation. The university said it strenuously denies the accusations of antisemitism and all proceedings will be fully defended, but further comment would be inappropriate given the matter is subject to legal action.

Academics discussed how to reject requests on social media

The Times discovered that academics had started removing supposedly challenging texts from reading lists after sending FOI requests about book removals and content warnings to all UK universities.

In some cases, universities refused to disclose any information, claiming that doing so would cause harm to their staff and was likely to “endanger physical or mental health”.

Bangor University said it would not share details of content warnings on English literature courses because staff were “very concerned about the potentially negative personal impact”.

Royal Holloway, University of London, declined to answer the questions because it would be “likely to endanger the physical or mental health of an individual”. The Times did not ask for any information about individual lecturers.

Kim A. Wagner, a history professor at Queen Mary, University of London, shared an image of one of this newspaper’s FOI requests with his followers on Twitter.

Alongside a photograph of the questions, asking for details about texts withdrawn because of concerns about their content, Wagner wrote: “While the world slowly burns, the rightwingers cheerily pursue their self-concocted culture war.”

Julian Wright, a historian and head of the humanities department at Northumbria University, replied that recipients should “push back and tell your uni legal dept these are vexatious”.

David Veevers, also a historian at Queen Mary, replied: “My first response: fuck off that’s a lot of work.” Stuart Jones, a historian at the University of Manchester, added: “Just ‘fuck off’ should suffice then”.

University of Cambridge criminologist Kate Herrity suggested it might be worth cross-referencing answers with colleagues from other universities.

“These have been doing the rounds at various institutions around the country. It might save your friend a bit of painful labour to check out what others are doing/saying about it,” she wrote.

The universities said they ensured FOI requests were responded to legally and accurately. A spokesman for Cambridge said Herrity was not involved with compiling reading lists of FOI responses. Manchester said it recognised its staff’s rights to legal freedom of speech and expression, as well as their responsibilities when using social media.

A spokesman for Queen Mary, University of London, said it responded to the request from The Times “as completely and comprehensively as we could from information we already held in recorded form within the framework of the legislation”. Northumbria University said: “A comment made by an individual on social media does not reflect the view of the university.”

A spokesman at Bangor University said staff were able to use their professional judgement in deciding whether or not to issue content warnings and confirmed it was undertaking an internal review of its FOI response to The Times.

Royal Holloway was approached for comment.