Several British universities appear to have quietly updated the acronym EDI from “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion” to “Equity, Diversity and Inclusion”. This revision is more than merely stylistic, and could potentially have significant legal ramifications.
Administrative efforts to promote gender and racial equality, as well as various forms of diversity, have long been part of British higher education. In the early and mid-2010s many of these efforts were grouped together and the first official EDI offices and policies established at universities.
The by now famous (or infamous) acronym was always understood to mean “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion”, in part as a reference to a university’s legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Over the past few years however, some universities have, while keeping the EDI acronym itself, begun replacing “Equality” with “Equity”.
For example, a Web.Archive search shows that as recently as 4 January of this year, Anglia Ruskin University’s webpage referenced its “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion” policy. By 25 January, however, “equality” was out and “equity” was in. Indeed, a search through webpages and policy documents reveal that at least 20 universities across the country now understand the “E” in EDI to refer to “equity”. These include several members of the Russell Group, such as Bristol, Leeds, Sheffield, and the London School of Economics.
It is a little unclear why these universities are suddenly – and rather quietly – replacing “equality” with “equity”. What is the difference between the two terms? A clue comes from Caroline Belden, writer at the Inclusion Solution – a blog from a consulting firm that has “unapologetically challenged systems of oppression and pushed boundaries” for nearly four decades”: “Equality”, she says, “is leaving the door open for anyone who has the means to approach it; equity is ensuring there is a pathway to that door for those who need it”.
This quote gets at the heart of the difference between the two concepts. Equality is usually interpreted as equal treatment for everyone, whether by the law, university admissions, or a bank lending department. In other words, no one gets special treatment.
Traditionally, “equity” meant (to quote the OED) “the recourse to general principles of justice to correct or supplement the provisions of the law”. Today, however, the term generally refers to an active levelling of the playing field. Here, special treatment is deliberately applied to advance those who are lagging behind, or perhaps to hold back those who are already too far ahead.
This is , for instance, how Keele University justified switching the two terms in its EDI strategy: “Equality seeks to promote fairness but will only work if everyone starts from the same point and needs the same level of support.” This, however, is not good enough. Keele University would rather “strive for equal outcomes” and “provide resources, opportunities and support in equitable ways”.
This demand for different treatment according to “needs” is why the change of terms could have serious legal ramifications for the higher education sector. The Equality Act 2010 is focused on ensuring equal treatment and prohibiting discrimination against those with protected characteristics (disability, race, gender, etc.). It specifically emphasises “equality of opportunity”. If universities strive for “equal outcomes” rather than equal opportunities, and if this results in positive discrimination – favouring certain groups over others based on their perceived disadvantages – this could violate the law.
While the Act technically does allow for some forms of direct discrimination, this must always be based on justifiable grounds. For example, the law stipulates that providing certain forms of assistance to disabled people only does not constitute discrimination against people with no disabilities. This seems acceptable. No one is offended when a ramp to exit the train is offered to a person in a wheelchair but not to anyone else. However, there are questions about what exactly constitutes a disability. In University of Bristol v. Abrahart the High Court ruled that universities have an obligation to remove barriers, such as by providing alternative assessment methods for students with anxiety, even when not explicitly requested.
Whether the change from “equality” to “equity” puts universities in legal jeopardy depends entirely on how they understand their obligation to promote “equity”. If it merely means ensuring that students in wheelchairs can get to lectures on the third-floor, no one will object. However, if it means that certain groups will be favoured over others academically, this is almost certain to go beyond the parameters of the Equality Act. Though it has yet to be ruled on by a court, it seems unlikely that disparate group outcomes could be used to justify active discrimination in, say, admissions.
Keele’s EDI strategy appears to go quite far in its pursuit of equity, stating explicitly that the university will “provide resources, opportunities and support in equitable ways”. Depending on what is meant by “resources” and “opportunities”, this could amount to a legally unjustifiable level of differential treatment.
CAF contacted several of the 20 universities about their switch from equality to equity, but none have replied at this point. We urge them to stick a minimalist interpretation and refrain from actively discriminating against students or staff.