Several requirements for academic job applicants at the University of Oxford are likely to be in violation of UK laws and regulations. Despite being made aware of this, the University appears reluctant to change its ways.
CAF has previously reported on the campaign by our friends at Alumni for Free Speech (AFFS) to remove all requirements for EDI and values statements in academic job applicants. The latest institution to be caught in this pernicious practice is the University of Oxford.
According to AFFS’ review of Oxford’s academic job listings, several require applicants to demonstrate their commitment to EDI, which clearly implies that the assessment of each application will be based at least in part of the strength of this commitment.
Although these requirements are not present in all job postings at the University, they frequently show up in a variety of formats and across multiple faculties. For example, one job description includes under “essential criteria” a “commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusion in research, teaching and/or the broader community”.
Another job description lists as an essential criterion “promoting awareness and understanding of equality, diversity and inclusion”. A third describes part of the general duties of an academic position as “embed[ding] the principles of mutual respect, equality, diversity and inclusion within all aspects of your work and interactions with colleagues; undertake training as and when asked to do so”.
Some applicants were also asked to provide “evidence of interest and effectiveness in promoting a culture of equality and diversity [what happened to inclusion?] in the workplace”. Such requirements do not assess an applicant’s qualifications, research plans, or teaching experience. Rather, they are intended as a test of ideological fealty.
This is not just in conflict with the principles of academic freedom – to which all universities should adhere – but it is probably in violation of several UK laws and regulations. Most notably, Section 43 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986, the anti-discrimination and harassment provisions of the Equality Act 2010, and Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 all require protections for free speech.
This is not the place for an exhaustive examination of exactly how each of the above examples violate any specific statues. Interested readers may consult Best Free Speech Practice’s statement for further details on these laws.
However, one legal datapoint worth highlighting is the Office for Students (OfS) draft 2024 guidance for complying with the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which states that:
“[Higher Education] Providers […] should not require applicants to any academic position to commit (or give evidence of commitment) to values, beliefs or ideas, if that may disadvantage any candidate for exercising their academic freedom within the law.”
You do not need a law degree to see that Oxford’s hiring practices, especially the requirement to “provide evidence of interest and effectiveness in promoting a culture of equality and diversity”, clearly violate this draft guidance.
As we remarked in our initial reporting on their campaign, AFFS always reaches out to an offending institution informally before making the matter public. Many universities instituted these policies when it was fashionable to do so, and are now quite willing to change them. Oxford, however, merely provided the vague and clichéd statement that while “freedom of speech and academic freedom are central tenants of university life and must be robustly protected”, the University remained “equally committed to fostering an inclusive culture which promotes equality [and] values diversity”.
The statement even went on to claim that “[t]hese commitments are not in opposition with each other, but rather support each other”. However, Oxford’s own policies prove that this is not the case. Requiring applicants to prove their commitment to any ideas, beliefs, or ideologies or expecting academic employees to actively promote a particularly viewpoint are serious violations of academic freedom.
Oxford’s response to AFFS’ initial letter is both complacent and disingenuous. This is why AFFS has now sent a formal letter to the University’s leadership, notifying them of these potential breaches of the law and regulatory expectations. If Oxford continues to rely on these outdated hiring practices, an official complaint will likely be filed with the OfS.
We join AFFS in calling on the University of Oxford to update their policies and remove any requirements for commitments to equality, diversity and inclusion, or any other set of contentious ideas. During his inaugural address as the new Chancellor of the University, William Hague emphasised the importance of free speech and “vigorous disagreement” on campus. This does not merely apply to the students; it goes for every member of an academic institution. It is about time that Oxford honoured this duty.