In the world of academia, it has become a tired truth that weighing in on certain public debates is now a potentially career-damaging activity. Over the past two weeks, Michael Foran, a lecturer in law at the University of Glasgow, has been at the centre of an online controversy which has expanded to involve public figures like India Willoughby and J. K. Rowling. Despite repeated pleas from Foran for the University to publicly support him, the leadership at Glasgow remains silent on the issue.
This controversy began when Foran decided to share his perspective on the implications of the For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers case, which will be heard by the Supreme Court at the end of November. In short, the Court will decide on guidance by the Scottish Government stating that a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) for the acquired gender of female must be considered a woman for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
In his analysis, shared on Substack and summarised on X, Foran argues that regardless of how the case is decided, it will “still be lawful to have biological female only toilets and changing rooms” in public spaces. He adds that the same does not apply for private employers, and that if the Court sides with the Scottish government, “no workplace will be permitted in law to exclude any trans woman with a GRC from a female-only toilet or changing room”.
Foran’s analysis is based on Schedule 3 of the Equality Act 2010, which, in his view, allows for “both sex and gender reassignment discrimination in order to establish and maintain separate or single-sex services for the public.” To be clear, Foran is not arguing for what he thinks the law ought to be, but rather giving an interpretation of what current law actually entails. This is perfectly within his rights as an academic and a citizen, and considering that he is a scholar specialising in equality law, one is tempted to say that he is just doing his job.
However, this point was lost on many of the people who came across his analysis on X/Twitter. Here, one user accused Foran of having “gone insane”, adding that “he thinks it would be ‘proportionate’ to physically accost women using bathrooms if they don’t conform to the female appearance stereotypes shaped by his sheltered religious upbringing”.
As the controversy grew, it attracted the attention of broadcaster and reality TV personality India Willoughby, who scoffed at Foran’s expertise, asking her followers “[w]hat sort of a ‘doctor’ is Michael Foran (apart from a quack one)?” In response, Foran explained that he is “a Dr because I have a PhD in law from the University of Cambridge, where I completed a thesis on Equality Before the Law, the Rule of Law and unlawful discrimination”.
If the issue had stayed at this level, it might have been brushed off as yet another dull social media spat. Things escalated when an account known as ‘SEEN Police Official Open Public Network’, which does not appear to be affiliated with the actual organisation Police SEEN UK, described Foran as “biased and reckless” and called on the University of Glasgow to “intervene”. One can only assume that such an intervention would take the form of disciplinary actions or even dismissal.
At about the same time, professor Stephen Whittle at Manchester Metropolitan University urged Glasgow University to discipline the lecturer in law for sharing his professional opinion on a legal matter. He accused Foran of having an “attitude to women [that] stinks of misogyny & a despicable ‘lookist’ attitude to those women he personally finds acceptable – or not”. It is hard to believe that Whittle has actually read Foran’s initial analysis. We should expect better from a professor of equalities law with two honorary doctorates and an OBE.
Professor Whittle went on to call on the HR department at the University of Glasgow to “give the Dr a warning that it is the Uni’s decision & NOT HIS, as to the woman who get to use the Uni’s loos”. Of course, Foran does not argue that he personally should be put in charge of toilet policy at Glasgow University or anywhere else.
These repeated attacks and calls for Glasgow to take disciplinary action have had a strongly negative effect on Foran. A colleague we spoke to expressed concern for his “general health and wellbeing […] as this issue is clearly causing [him] a lot of stress.” In the middle of last week, the pressure became too much for Foran to continue delivering tutorials and lectures, and he went on sick-leave.
While Foran has been met with understanding and support from colleagues within the university, his repeated requests for a public statement of support have met with no response from the institution’s leadership. According to Foran, “a statement of support from the university is vital to my own wellbeing and to stop these attacks or for similar attacks to happen again in the future.”
There is a history of universities issuing statements of support for academics who have come under attack for doing their jobs. When Jo Phoenix was being harassed for her gender-critical views, Reading University made a public statement in defence of academic freedom. While this certainly did not stop the attacks on Phoenix, it may have taken the sting out of calls for her dismissal.
Similarly, online calls for disciplinary action against Scott Wortley at the University of Edinburgh School of Law prompted Head of School Professor Jo Shaw to voice her support for Wortley and “any and all of my colleagues” who might face similar attacks. Even if such statements of support do not dispel the Twitter mob, they send a strong signal that the University will not be intimidated into taking disciplinary measures against its staff.
According to one informed member of Glasgow University, the decision whether to issue a statement currently lies with Richard Warburton, the University Head of Communications. Apparently, Warburton has involved both the Head of Security and the University COO in these deliberations, but they are unlikely “to deliver an immediate response”. While it is understandable that senior members of the university should be involved in issuing the statement, the decision itself should not require much debate. Universities should always defend the right of their academics to advance new arguments within their field, even controversial ones.
To be clear, the University of Glasgow should not take a stance on the implications of the Equality Act 2010 on who can use which bathrooms. Rather, they should simply issue a clear and concise statement in support of Michael Foran’s academic freedom and his right to express his professional opinions on the very issues that he was hired to research. In short, they should make it absolutely clear to everyone that neither Foran nor any other member of the University will be dismissed or disciplined for doing their jobs as academics.