Stonewall is crumbling. Over the past few months, several stories have revealed how the LGBTQ rights organisation is slowly losing influence with British institutions. In January, The Times reported that several of the largest ministerial departments were no longer part of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Programme. Likewise, several institutions of higher learning have abandoned the initiative over the past few years.
This is worth celebrating. Stonewall has had a pernicious effect on public life in the UK, particularly in the higher education sector. A closer look at the policies enacted by universities to please the organisation testify to the extent of the damage done.
Through its Workplace Equality Index (WEI), Stonewall ranks institutions based on their “progress on lesbian, gay, bi and trans inclusion”. Although this may sound innocuous, the scheme incentivises universities to organise mandatory trainings, institute promotional policies rewarding conformity, and encourage a general culture of silence on controversial topics.
CAF has obtained WEI submissions from 13 out of a total of 24 Russell Group universities using Freedom of Information requests. These submissions reveal the corrosive influence the programme has had on UK higher education over the years.
Of the 13 submissions we obtained, we selected 5 for close analysis. These were from the Russell Group members which performed best in the WEI rankings over the past five years. They are:
Bristol: Submitted 2021 for WEI 2022
Cardiff: Submitted 2021 for WEI 2022
Imperial: Submitted 2021 for WEI 2022
Manchester: Submitted 2023 for WEI 2024
Sheffield: Submitted 2019 for WEI 2020
Some of the policies outlined in these reports have since lapsed, but most remain in place. Taken as a whole, they reflect the sort of initiatives incentivised by Stonewall in universities across the UK.
A WEI report is essentially a very long questionnaire about the university’s policies and attitudes on all things LGBTQ+. The areas covered range from training sessions for staff and zero-tolerance stances for certain viewpoints to ideological criteria for promotion and official positions taken at the institutional level. Below, we review some of the most egregious examples from the WEI reports.
Mandatory training for staff
In the second section of the 2020 WEI questionnaire entitled “The Employee Lifecycle”, universities are asked to estimate “[w]hat percentage of employees with recruitment responsibilities have been trained on reducing bias and discrimination towards LGBT people”.
For further guidance, the document states that such training “should reach as many employees who recruit as possible”. Sheffield University, one of the top performers that year, proudly boasted of “a mandatory online module that ALL Chairs of Interview panels are required to complete”.
Apparently hoping to score a few extra brownie points, the Sheffield report even mentions plans to “introduce mandatory training for all staff on Unconscious Bias and ED&I essentials”. CAF has been unable to confirm whether this plan has been carried through; however, it appears that unconscious bias and/or EDI training is mandatory in several departments, including Health Science and Chemistry.
In newer versions of the WEI survey, participating institutions are asked if they provided such training, but are not required to estimate the share of their employees who have undergone it. Instead, they are instructed that the training “should be provided to all employees involved in recruitment, not just HR teams”.
In addition, the survey provides examples of best practices to be shared during the training sessions, such as keeping “a checklist of inclusive practices that recruiters complete when they carry out a recruitment round.” One item on this checklist for recruiters could be “sharing their pronouns at the start of an interview”.
A 2021 submission from Cardiff University reveals that it has “two sources of training for colleagues” involved with recruitment. The first is “Chair Panel Training”, which is mandatory for anyone leading a recruitment panel for either staff or students. The second is “Recruitment and Selection” training, which all other staff members involved with recruitment are “expected” to attend.
The University emphasises that “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion runs throughout both of these sections”, and that the “trainer will reference all protected groups”. Likewise, Imperial College London’s WEI report from the same year boasts of similar training for staff. CAF has previously reported on ideologically motivated training at the London institution.
It is not just hiring staff who are required to undertake this sort of training. The 2021 WEI report from Bristol mentions that “[c]ompletion of mandatory training modules is a requirement to complete probation at the University”. The University estimates that “95% – 100% of staff have completed the mandatory EDI training, with allowance for staff that are currently completing their first year of employment”. Bristol continues to run mandatory EDI training for staff, claiming that it aims to go “beyond statutory compliance to ensure equitable outcomes”.
Similarly, Cardiff University reports that they “run a classroom based/online live delivery course called Equality, Diversity and Inclusion for Team Leaders and Managers”. This module is “mandatory for anyone who is involved in creating standards, policies or criteria or the application of such criteria involved in decision making processes such as performance development review, probation, staff and student recruitment, student admissions, assessing students, promotions, equality impact assessments and allocating projects or tasks”. In short, anyone who makes any sort of important decisions at the University. Unconscious bias training remains mandatory for all academic staff at Cardiff.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with training your recruitment staff, just as you would train any other members of staff with specialised tasks. The problem lies in the nature of the training. The universities that scored highly on the WEI assessments proudly boast of “EDI training” and awareness of “Unconscious Bias”.
As our previous review of such courses shows, they tend to be highly ideological, promoting “correct” views on contentious issues. This is not what universities should be forcing on their employees, and this approach is likely connected with the practice of requiring EDI statements for job and promotion applications.
Turning non-LGBTQ+ colleagues into “allies”
In the fourth section of the WEI questionnaire, universities are asked whether they have “a formal programme or initiative to engage all non-LGBT employees to become LGBT allies”. Simply answering ‘yes’ to this question is tantamount to the university taking an official position on a political question, which is already inappropriate. However, many institutions take their ‘allyship’ much further than that.
For this section, Cardiff University presented a network group, which colleagues can join and receive public recognition for membership of, including an official sign for their office. Moreover, members who join can also take part in “gender neutral language guided conversations with staff” and benefit from an LGBTQ+ reading list. This group, called “Enfys” (Welsh for “rainbow”) still exists and provides all its members with a laminated card to display in a public place and a rainbow lanyard “to proudly wear around campus”.
Manchester’s 2024 WEI submission mentions the “ALLOUT Allies” programme, which is “promoted throughout the year on significant dates”. Participation is voluntary, but ALLOUT includes several efforts to promote membership, including badges and flags for newcomers “to outwardly demonstrate commitment to the programme.” The University notes that this has been an “effective marketing tool to recruit new allies”. The ALLOUT Allies programme is still running: see here.
Likewise, the Bristol report mentions that staff are invited to sign an official pledge of support and advocacy, which grants them “visible signs of their commitment to LGBTQ+ equality”, such as stickers or posters.
There is also a “formal ‘Becoming an Active LGBT+ Ally’ training course”, which includes a section on becoming an ally and another on “Continuing your Allyship Journey”. The course “takes staff through the importance of allyship […] and actions that staff can take to become more effective allies.” Bristol still hosts a “trans-allyship” page on its website, together with a trans-inclusion e-learning course.
Going even further in this direction, Imperial College London offers so-called “Active-bystander training”. Although the training is voluntary, the entire point is to teach employees to “challenge poor behaviours” in their colleagues and “bring about change” within their institution. As such, the course is meant to affect the employees who opt not to participate.
The active bystander course is still running: see here. The introduction states that “[i]f we constantly reinforce messages about behaviour that is unacceptable, this puts considerable pressure on people to re-think their behaviour. So any level of inappropriate or unacceptable behaviour should not be ignored.” In essence, it appears to be a crash-course in how to obnoxiously lecture your colleagues on their insufficient allyship. Not exactly an approach conducive to a free exchange of ideas at the university.
This course seems particularly sinister. The explicit goal is to force “change” within an institution. It places the onus of “challenging poor behaviours” on the employees themselves, encouraging them to “constantly reinforce messages” about the right attitudes. Indeed, as we will see, this culture of vigilance against wrong-think has even seeped into Imperial’s official policies.
Inclusive objectives for managers
The fifth section of the WEI questionnaire concerns the evaluation of employees by their managers and the criteria used to assess someone’s potential for promotion. Unsurprisingly, Stonewall expects “inclusion-based competency” to be a part of “internal promotions and external appointments” for all senior leaders and line managers.
As a result, several universities explicitly take these qualities into consideration when recruiting to leadership positions. For example, Cardiff explains how it expects “all interviews for senior leaders and line managers to include one of the EDI questions at point of interview”. Moreover, “academic staff are also promoted through our promotions process”, which encourages “colleagues to include any work they have taken part in with relation to equality, diversity and inclusion” in their application, as “[t]his work contributes towards their promotion case”.
Similarly, Manchester’s report mentions that “[a]ll senior leaders must undertake DITW [Diversity in the Workplace] and Unconscious Bias training every three years”. In addition, the “Principal Accountabilities” section for leadership roles include “to contribute to the delivery of [EDI] objectives”. Finally, under “Knowledge, Skills and Experience Needed”, the role will require that any aspiring leader “shares the university’s values”. Given the rest of the WEI report, these values are probably not just scientific rigor and pursuit of truth.
Such reviews of inclusive-based performance go beyond top leadership positions. Cardiff’s WEI report mentions that its Performance Development Review includes an expectation that academic staff “contribute towards the enhancement of the University’s profile for promoting equality and diversity”. As such, part of the evaluation for lecturers and researchers will be whether they “demonstrate a commitment to diversity, equality and inclusion” and “do not ignore the value of a diverse university”.
As mentioned above, Imperial College London has also adapted these evaluations for its academic staff. One aspect of its Personal Review and Development assessment, which forms part of its appraisal process, asks all staff about “Contribution to Imperial community including promotion of Imperial Expectations and support for equality, diversity and inclusion”.
As if that was not enough, the document further explains that one of these “Imperial Expectations” is that employees “challenge behaviour, actions and words that do not support the promotion of equality and diversity [emphasis added]”. Imagine having to recount to your manager just how many times you have accosted your colleagues for showing insufficient support for EDI this quarter. (“Imperial Expectations” has now been replaced by “Imperial Values“, which defines as “allow[ing] discrimination or dis-respect to go unchallenged” as “negative behaviour”.)
Designing your hiring and promotion process to require evidence of support for any particular cause or ideological position is viewpoint discrimination. This practice is not just antithetical to academic freedom, but it is probably also against several UK laws, including the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998, which prohibit discrimination in employment based on belief.
It is beneath these world-class institutions to demand political fealty from their employees just to gain a promotion. They should remain neutral on contentious issues, but this is something that will cost an institution dearly in the Stonewall rankings.
Official view of the institution
Throughout the WEI reports, Stonewall makes it clear that it expects universities to take an official viewpoint on LGBTQ+ matters. For example, the 2022 questionnaire asks organisations what information is supplied to “all new employees” during induction.
As a little hint, the document adds a section called “What we are looking for”, which explains that your institution will receive points for giving newcomers “messages that explicitly reference LGBTQ+ inclusion, including bi, non-binary and trans inclusion”.
Every one of the top five performers whose reports we reviewed ticked the box, confirming that they indeed inform new employees of these institutional commitments. Bristol mentions an “explicit message on the organisation’s commitment to LGBT+ inclusion”, while Cardiff proudly states that “messages around equality, diversity and inclusion will be reinforced including completion of our mandatory EDI module”.
Such reinforcements are meant not only for employees. Several universities explain in their reports that they invite external suppliers to EDI training sessions. Manchester apparently monitors EDI indicators for “all suppliers regardless of what they supply”. If they fail to meet the required standard, they are encouraged to attend “training”. In case of insufficient improvement, the University “exercise[s] the option to cease trading with them”.
In one example from Manchester’s WEI report, a staff member claimed that a representative from an external supplier had been “mis-gendering” them. Thankfully, the University was able to “offer […] specific training to the company to prevent future occurrences”. Other suppliers who had “not sufficiently completed the sections [of a questionnaire] covering ED&I” were invited to a series of “Lunch and Learn” sessions, the first of which was on the topic of “Navigating the Pronouns Landscape”.
Students do not escape the creeping conformity either. Bristol details an induction module for new students, which covers “the University’s acceptable behaviour policy, the University’s values, student conduct (including details about homophobia and biphobia being not tolerated at the University), how to be an active bystander”.
In this context, homophobia and biphobia are defined as “the fear or dislike of someone, based on prejudice or negative attitudes, beliefs or views about lesbian, gay or bisexual people”. The WEI report includes a very similar definition of transphobia. This amounts to a statement that the University will not tolerate certain views and beliefs, which means that it does not support freedom of conscience or speech.
Likewise, Cardiff University’s Sexual Orientation Policy states that “[h]omophobia is an unacceptable form of behaviour and will not be tolerated”. While the University lists several examples of homophobia which are actually illegal, they also list perfectly legal viewpoints, such as “[d]ismissal of same-sex partners as less important than opposite-sex partners”.
Although some may consider this opinion retrograde, merely holding it is not illegal nor a form of harassment. Yet, the University clearly informs its students and staff that such views are not to be tolerated and that they may even be grounds for disciplinary actions. We have not been able to ascertain whether Cardiff’s “Sexual Orientation Policy” is still current. However, its “Trans policy“, which is current, defines “intentional use of incorrect pronouns or name” as “transphobic abuse” which will be treated by the university as a “disciplinary offence”. This is probably contrary to the Equality Act 2010 as currently interpreted, which defines gender critical views as protected “philosophical beliefs”.
Each of these policies, from proving one’s commitment to diversity and inclusion to requiring attendance at EDI training modules and banishing certain viewpoints, involve universities taking official positions. They are contrary to institutional neutrality. Yet if an organisation wants to receive a good rating from Stonewall, they must abandon neutrality in favour of activism.
Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index continues to exert a pernicious influence on UK universities. Many of the policies mentioned in these submissions are still in place, or have been revised only superficially. Hopefully they will soon be abandoned, as Stonewall disintegrates brick by brick.