Job adverts at the University of Oxford include various requirements for applicants that are highly likely to be in violation of several UK laws on anti-discrimination and protection of the free speech. This is not the first time the nation’s oldest university has got in trouble over such practices, but apparently not even the commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act has convinced the institution to change its ways.
Back in February, CAF published a story that highlighted several problematic features of academic job listings at Oxford. Specifically, some applicants were asked to prove “effectiveness in promoting a culture of equality and diversity”, while others were told that an “essential” criterion for the position was a “commitment” to EDI. Our piece came off the back of a formal letter of concern sent to the University by Alumni for Free Speech as part of their campaign to eliminate this practice throughout higher education.
Sadly, however, Oxford has ignored the warnings and continues to feature job adverts with requirements for a commitment to EDI. This is despite the fact that the commencement of key provisions of HEFSA makes it even more likely that this practice could land the University in serious regulatory trouble with the Office for Students.
As noted in AFFS’s original letter, requiring applicants and/or employees to commit to or promote any particular viewpoint risks violating a bevy of laws, most notably Section 43 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986, the anti-discrimination and harassment provisions of the Equality Act 2010, and the Human Rights Act 1997. Since AFFS warned Oxford of the potential violations of these laws, additional free speech protections have also commenced, which specifically bar this sort of policy.
The OfS’s Regulatory advice 2024, states that “Providers and constituent institutions should not require applicants to any academic position to commit (or give evidence of commitment) to a particular viewpoint”. This also applies to applicants for promotion. Two examples (27 and 32) in the guidance specifically concern requirements for commitments to political ideas, one of which actually uses EDI to demonstrate the principle.
Despite all of this, Oxford and some of its constituent colleges are still requiring applicants to commit to and/or promote EDI. A recently posted advert for an associate professorship in engineering science lists as essential criteria a “commitment to advocating for equality, diversity and inclusion in research, teaching and/or the broader community” and an additional commitment to “promoting a culture of equality, diversity and inclusion amongst students and in the workplace, including the undertaking of appropriate training as and when asked to do so”.
In another example, a job description for a professorship of statistical science requires applicants to demonstrate “a commitment to promoting equality, diversity and inclusion”. Another advert specifies one of the “general duties” of an associate professor of plant sciences as embedding “the principles of mutual respect, equality, diversity and inclusivity in all aspects of your work and in interactions with colleagues”.
Although applicants are not required to submit an actual EDI statement by Oxford, as some other institutions have been known to do, they are encouraged to provide evidence of their commitment to this holy trinity in their cover letters. As the official guidance for CVs and supporting statements says, the letter “must explain how you meet each requirement of the selection criteria”. There is also a reminder that all claims should “be supported by evidence”.
Since some job descriptions list a commitment to promoting EDI as “essential”, a good cover letter for such a position would have to demonstrate the required ideological fealty. Moreover, applicants might reasonably expect that an inability to demonstrate this fealty would harm their chances in the selection process.
The problem is also not confined to the written part of the application process. One member of the University recalled being asked during an interview for the position of lecturer: “How would you contribute to Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion within the department and the University if appointed to the post”. Take a moment to ponder how an applicant opposed on principle to certain parts of EDI might answer this question.
Oxford’s inability to recruit academics purely on their academic merits is part of a deeper strategy. The official Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan 2024-2027 states as a target that by 2027, 85% of staff should “agree that their department is committed to promoting equality and diversity”. It also lays out specific targets for what academic departments must look like in a few years. For example, Oxford hopes to achieve “a yearly increase in the proportion of BME Associate Professors, with 11% representation by 2029”. Dropping the M and the E from the acronym, the University also aims to raise “the proportion of Black students awarded good degrees to 94%”. There are also targets regarding the number of BME researchers and professional staff, as well as female academics.
To help hiring committees achieve the desired diversity, Oxford has created some “Associate Professor Inclusive Recruitment Guidelines”. Besides a lot of tips on how to make the job advert sufficiently inclusive, such as by using “clear statements which promote diversity and inclusion” to “help applicants understand the employer’s commitment and approach to equality, diversity and inclusion”, this document also advises recruiters on how to ensure diversity through the shortlisting process.
Of course, members of the hiring committee must regularly ask themselves if they are “content that the shortlist is diverse enough”. One way of achieving this contentment is by “splitting the longlist by gender prior to shortlisting”. Aiming to “support the selection panel in creating a gender diverse shortlist”, there are created “two separate shortlists” to “assess all applicants from women” and “all applicants from men”. Then, the two lists are compared by “assessing the top shortlisted application from a woman against the top shortlisted application from a man”. The strongest applicant is then “added to the final shortlist” and the “runner up” is put against the second placed applicants”.
This process “continues until all applications from women and men have been assessed against each other”. This is an oddly convoluted way of helping candidates who would not otherwise have made it onto the shortlist. Moreover, it is not actually intended as a neutral measure, as the guide explicitly states that “this tool is specifically designed to support Athena Swan initiatives and ensure that women are represented on shortlists”. Why not just save everyone a lot of time by saying that at the beginning?
As it turns out, some documents (probably not meant for public consumption) do save time by being more direct. A so-called “template search report” has been created for chairs of hiring committees to use “at the shortlisting meeting to monitor the success of the search”. It begins by graciously suggesting that “all potential suitable candidates [are] to be contacted, not just women/Bame candidates”. However, that is the end of the useful suggestions. In the section entitled “Any further action required following the meeting?”, we find the following advice:
“The Chair should confirm that under-represented groups have been included in the search list. The search may be extended if that is considered desirable in the light of the number of individuals identified, their quality, or their diversity. If no women or BAME candidates are on the list for approaching at this stage. If, following a further, extended search, no female or BAME candidates are identified, the appropriate authority should be consulted to request permission to proceed with the recruitment.
“The chair of the panel should have completed unconscious bias training and other members of the panel should be strongly encouraged to do so. It will be the chair’s responsibility to challenge any bias in the selection procedure.”
The University of Oxford has been warned about the likely illegality of these practices in the past, but it seemingly refuses to change its ways. As CAF’s reporting and the excellent work by Alumni for Free Speech on this issue has demonstrated, the attempts to engineer the recruitment process to achieve certain demographic or ideological goals is widespread throughout British higher education. Universities are clearly not taking our warnings seriously, so perhaps it is time for the regulator to step in and actually enforce its own rules. How else will places like Oxford ever learn?