It's Not Defamation Just Because You Don't Like It
One of the most common misunderstandings I encounter—particularly when writing about institutional abuse—is the assumption that any criticism of a person or institution is somehow defamatory. It isn't.
In fact, there is an important distinction between disparagement, defamation, and academic critique. Confusing the three has become increasingly common, particularly as universities, schools, and other institutions become more sensitive to reputational risk.
Understanding the difference matters.
Disparagement: "I Think They're Terrible"
Disparagement is, at its simplest, negative commentary.
Imagine a school where historical sexual abuse occurred.
Someone writes:
"I think the school's leadership failed its students. I would never send my child there."
This is a value judgement. It is critical. It may well damage the school's reputation. But it is an opinion.
Whether you agree with it is another matter entirely.
Disparagement is often uncomfortable because it says something unflattering. That does not make it unlawful.
Defamation: False Facts Presented as Truth
Defamation is different.
Suppose someone writes:
"The principal sexually abused students."
If that statement is false, it may well be defamatory because it presents a factual allegation capable of being proved true or false. If it damages that person's reputation, legal consequences may follow.
The key point is this:
Defamation is not simply saying something negative.
It is making a false factual claim that harms reputation.
Truth remains one of the strongest protections against a defamation claim.
Academic Critique: Evidence Before Opinion
Academic critique belongs to an entirely different category.
Suppose a researcher examines the same school's historical handling of abuse and writes:
"The school's safeguarding procedures failed because complaints were inadequately investigated, reporting mechanisms were unclear, and staff prioritised institutional reputation over child protection. These findings indicate systemic institutional failure rather than isolated individual misconduct."
Notice what has happened.
The argument is built from evidence.
The author explains how they reached their conclusion.
The focus is on systems, policies, governance, and documented behaviour—not on insulting individuals.
This is what scholarship is supposed to do.
Academic critique asks:
What happened?
What evidence supports that conclusion?
How do we know?
What broader social or institutional patterns does this reveal?
It is not written to punish.
It is written to understand.
Why Institutions Often Confuse the Two
Institutions frequently experience evidence-based criticism as reputational attack.
That reaction is understandable—but understandable does not make it correct.
If an academic concludes that an institution failed to protect children, enabled abuse, ignored complaints, or privileged its own reputation over student welfare, that conclusion may be profoundly damaging to the institution's public image.
It may also be entirely accurate.
Reputational harm caused by truthful, evidence-based analysis is not the same thing as defamation.
Nor is it simply "being negative."
Sometimes the evidence leads to uncomfortable conclusions.
That is precisely why academic freedom exists.
A Simple Rule
When in doubt, ask what is being criticised.
If the criticism is:
"I don't like this institution." — that is largely opinion.
"This person committed a crime," when that statement is false — that may be defamation.
"The available evidence demonstrates institutional failures because..." — that is academic critique.
The distinction is simple but significant.
Good scholarship is not measured by whether it protects institutional reputations.
It is measured by whether its conclusions are supported by evidence.
One of the questions I am occasionally asked is how I approach writing about real people and real institutions.
The answer is that I don't do it alone. My memoir is being edited through several distinct lenses, each serving a different purpose. Alongside a professional literary editor, I am also working with someone from my hometown whom I attended school with. They bring an invaluable informal perspective—someone who understands the culture of the school, the dynamics of the town, and the social context in which these events occurred. Their role is not to shape the argument, but to identify assumptions, clarify context, and ensure the story remains intelligible to readers who were not there while remaining faithful to the world we both knew. The manuscript is also being independently fact-checked against contemporaneous documents and primary sources, and reviewed by a publishing lawyer to identify potential legal issues before publication. None of these processes guarantee perfection, but together they reflect my commitment to writing responsibly, accurately, and ethically about events that are both deeply personal and of broader public interest.
A Final Note
One final point: I'm an academic, not a lawyer.
This post is intended to explain the conceptual differences between disparagement, defamation, and academic critique from the perspective of research, writing, and public scholarship. It is not legal advice.
Defamation law varies between jurisdictions, and how a statement is interpreted will always depend on its specific wording, context, and the laws of the country or state in which it is published. If you are concerned that something you have written—or something written about you—may have legal implications, you should seek advice from a qualified lawyer practising in the relevant jurisdiction.
Understanding these concepts is an important part of responsible scholarship. Knowing how they apply in a particular legal context is a matter for legal advice, not academic opinion.
