Universities’ insistence that job candidates show support for equality policies may contravene free speech duties and prove to be “unlawful” if challenged in court, a campaign group has claimed.
Alumni for Free Speech analysed job postings and recruitment policies at Russell Group?universities in England and Wales and found eight institutions required applicants to submit – along with their CVs and other relevant documents – information evidencing their support for equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).
Eleven had further advertised jobs which stated that employees are required to “promote”, “support”, “contribute to”, or “commit to” the EDI policies of the university.
AFFS says in a ?on the issue that, although many aspects of EDI are “uncontroversial”, and, in some cases, legally?required, it was concerned that the use of the term also refers to “various highly controversial beliefs and agendas”, citing “aspects of trans and ‘critical race theory’ ideologies”.
Many of the universities did not make it clear what aspect of EDI applicants were required to support and AFFS said the candidate may therefore be forced to express support for a viewpoint with which they may not necessarily agree.
In some instances support for EDI was listed as an “essential” criterion for a post, with applicants failing to meet it facing their application not being progressed.
A policy at the University of Leeds, for example, released after a Freedom of Information request, shows that candidates can only be shortlisted if they provide sufficient “evidence of working to promote equality, diversity and inclusion”, the report says.
“As any applicant who is opposed to some aspect of EDI could not possibly supply such evidence, this is clearly viewpoint discrimination,” says the report. The university was contacted for comment.
AFFS said the policies uncovered represented a “severe compliance risk” with free speech and anti-discrimination laws, particularly after recent court rulings around what are “protected viewpoints” under the Equality Act.
It named Imperial College London, the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, Durham University, the University of Leeds, the University of Southampton, Queen Mary University of London and King’s College London as the institutions that listed jobs that required evidence of support for EDI.
Three of these – Cambridge, Durham and Queen Mary – appear to have changed their?requirements since, AFFS said – but the rest were accused of ignoring contact from the group flagging concerns.
Campus resources on equity, diversity and inclusion in higher education
Expanding its research beyond the Russell Group, the research found similar concerns at almost half (45 per cent) of 108 English and Welsh universities.
Abhishek Saha, a professor at Queen Mary University of London, said that “requiring EDI commitments in recruitment creates an environment where applicants feel pressured to conform to a particular ideological stance in order to have a fair shot at the job. This discourages diversity of thought and has a chilling effect on academic freedom.”
William Mackesy, co-founder of AFFS and a regulatory lawyer, said, given the University of Sussex was fined over a “non-compliant EDI policy”, the apparent lack of compliance in recruitment “could get expensive”.
The report will be passed to the OfS, said Andrew Neish, another co-founder of AFFS, and he said the regulator should “investigate the worst offenders for regulatory failures” but also “given the complex and rapidly evolving legal position”, give universities time to get their practices right.
“The interaction of EDI and free speech is not easy for universities, as the law has evolved and been clarified at speed. They need get their compliance right very soon,” said Neish.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
