Research carried out by Alumni for Free Speech has revealed that at least 8 universities in England and Wales have what are highly likely to be unlawful, EDI-based recruitment policies. The results, published in a recent report, further indicate that several more institutions are likely in breach of the law as well. While some universities have proved willing to change their policies, others refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing.
Back in January, CAF reported on a new campaign by AFFS to challenge unlawful requirements for EDI-statements from academic job applications. As part of this campaign, AFFS has systematically reviewed the job postings of all Russell Group members in England and Wales, some 21 institutions in total. The results indicate that a majority are likely in breach of the law due to their EDI polices, either in hiring practices, requirements for employees, or both.
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion – collectively referred to as EDI – is a broad concept that encompasses many aspirations and practices, most of which are quite harmless. For example, proponents of EDI will likely consider efforts to remove barriers to entry and discrimination against certain groups as a core part of the mission. These worthwhile goals are neither legally nor morally problematic, and are often in perfect alignment with duties under the Equality Act.
However, as regular readers of this post will be aware, the term has morphed to embody a much wider range of positions, many of which are quite radical, such as the extreme wing of the trans movement or so-called ‘critical race theory’. These ideologies often seek to promote positive discrimination in the quest for ‘equity’ or to mandate politically motivated changes to the curriculum in the name of ‘decolonisation’.
It is this side of EDI that risks violating laws and regulations concerning hiring, equality, and free speech. In their recent project, AFFS has focused on recruitment, particularly the requirement that applicants for academic jobs provide evidence of support for agendas, ideas, or campaigns generally associated with EDI. Such evidence, as the report states, can be used “as the basis for discriminating between candidates based on their support for EDI agendas being promoted by the universities – why else is it being sought?”
To give a sense of the sort of thing AFFS looked for in job advertisements, one example from a university – which was thankfully open to changing its policies and will therefore not be named – required applicants to “provide a statement (a maximum of 500 words), outlining work you have been involved in which demonstrates your commitment to EDI and our values.”
As the relevant application guide explained, the aim was to “foster a collegiate community of extraordinary people aligned to the University’s values. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) are a key part of the University’s Strategy and a central part of everything we do”. As such, the requirement was necessary to ensure that “all of our colleagues are aligned both to our values and commitment to EDI”.
When AFFS went digging through the job listings of the English and Welsh members of the Russell Group, relying on open-source research and Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, they discovered that 8 universities – including some of the country’s top institutions – required this sort of evidence for support of EDI in some of their academic job listings. These were:
- 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
- King’s College London
These policies risk running afoul of a range of legal and regulatory obligations on English and Welsh universities to safeguard free speech, academic freedom, and protected beliefs. While this is not an appropriate place for an in-depth legal analysis, the AFFS report includes a good summary of the relevant law on this matter.
After AFFS reached out to these institutions and voiced its concerns about the potential illegality of the relevant practices, three proved willing to change their policies. These were Cambridge, Durham, and Queen Mary. We commend them for recognising the problem and changing their recruitment processes.
The others, however, have either not responded in full to AFFS’ letter of notice regarding the policies, or simply refuse to acknowledge any problem. For some, it seems, requests for EDI statements are simply part of the commonplace practice of screening out candidates who do not meet all the “essential criteria” for a given position. There is nothing inherently wrong with this practice, and it can in many cases be extremely useful. For example, a candidate without the required academic qualifications can quickly be screened out. However, when support for EDI becomes an “essential criterion”, the policy results in direct discrimination against otherwise qualified applicants who simply lack the correct ideological commitments.
Such is the case at the University of Leeds, where an FOI request revealed a policy that candidates can only be shortlisted if they provide sufficient “[e]vidence of working to promote equality, diversity and inclusion”. As any applicant who is opposed to some aspect of EDI could not possibly supply such evidence, this is clearly viewpoint discrimination.
Besides likely unlawful recruitment practices, AFFS’ investigation has also uncovered a much more widespread practice, which is also likely to be in breach of regulations. Many universities that did not ask for evidence of support for EDI nevertheless described a “duty” on employees to “promote”, “support”, “contribute to”, or “commit to” EDI. As noted in the AFFS report, such duties “creates a serious risk of a failure under” free speech regulations.
A total of 11 Russell Group members were found to impose some version of these duties on their employees, as described in job adverts. These are:
- The University of Birmingham
- The University of Cambridge
- The University of Leeds
- The University of Liverpool
- The University of Manchester
- Newcastle University
- The University of Oxford
- Queen Mary University of London
- The University of Sheffield
- The University of Southampton
- University College London
Combining these with the former list of universities that require EDI statements in job applications, it becomes clear that two thirds of English and Welsh Russell Group institutions are violating either free speech regulations, anti-discrimination laws, or both.
It is quite likely that these practices are significantly more widespread than indicated by the above lists. A preliminary extension of this research by AFFS discovered at least one more university requiring EDI statements in some of its job listings. Moreover, 34 other institutions in England and Wales appear to impose some version of the duty to promote EDI on their employees, with another 15 being at risk of non-compliance.
In addition, AFFS’ research methodology means that the gathered evidence is only a snapshot of the job postings from each reviewed university. It is likely that many universities not listed above have also committed some of these violations. Even with these caveats, and leaving aside the institutions marked as merely being of concern rather than clear violations, the AFFS report shows that of the 108 institutions surveyed in the initial investigation and the preliminary extension, a whopping 45% are highly likely to be non-compliant with legal obligations.
At this stage, Alumni for Free Speech has only contacted the non-compliant members of the Russell Group about their potentially unlawful practices. Nevertheless, the report is a clear sign that all British universities should immediately instigate a review of their policies, particularly as they relate to EDI in recruitment practices, to ensure their legal compliance.
The recent Office for Student fine issued to the University of Sussex for violating its terms of registration could end up being the first of many, unless universities start taking their legal free speech obligations seriously. Indeed, AFFS is sharing their report with the OfS and reporting the institutions that remain non-compliant. This is not only a warning to them, but an opportunity to fix the problem before it is too late.