Academics applying for posts at London Metropolitan University are required to submit a mandatory “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion” (EDI) statement explaining what they have previously done to “advance equality”. This requirement appears in a section of the application extolling the university’s commitment to “equity and inclusion” and reminding applicants of its stated “pledge to support LGBTQIA+ rights”.
Following a tip-off, CAF is writing to the university to seek clarification as to whether this requirement is compatible with academic freedom under the regulatory framework introduced by the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 (HEFSA), and to ask either that the accompanying wording be revised, or that the university provide clear assurances that the policy is not used to filter out candidates who do not go beyond lawful compliance with equality law.
Across the academic posts we have reviewed, the framing that precedes the requirement for a one-page EDI statement is doing significant work, shaping how applicants are likely to understand what counts as a satisfactory response. Particularly notable is the university’s shift in emphasis from “equality” to “equity”. In plain terms, equality is a legal baseline – fair treatment and non-discrimination – whereas equity is often used to mean actively pursuing equal outcomes, a more expansive (and contested) agenda than compliance with the Equality Act or the public sector equality duty. For that reason, it’s worth quoting the wording at some length, to get a clearer sense of what the university may have in mind by “going beyond” legal compliance:
“Championing equity and inclusion is at the heart of all we do at London Metropolitan University. Our values and the action we’re taking are on our Centre for Equity and Inclusion, and our EDI pages. Our pledge to support LGBTQIA+ rights is on our news pages… All job applicants must submit an EDI statement of up to one page, outlining how they will contribute to making our University more inclusive and what they have previously done to advance equality.”
Can universities ask about inclusive practice in recruitment? There’s nothing inherently unlawful in inviting candidates to explain how they teach fairly, support students appropriately, or comply with equality law. However, under the post-2023 regulatory framework, there are clear limits on how such requirements can be framed and used in academic appointments.
The Office for Students (OfS) has made clear in its guidance that universities should not require applicants “to any academic position to commit (or give evidence of commitment) to a particular viewpoint”. In other words, recruitment processes must not operate as ideological screening mechanisms, nor create a chilling effect for lawful academic dissent.
That distinction matters here because London Met’s wording goes beyond a neutral request about professional practice, requiring all applicants to explain how they have “advanced equality”, in a context framed by an explicit institutional pledge on a highly contested set of issues around sex and gender. For some academics – particularly those with gender-critical views – that framing reasonably gives rise to concern that what is being sought is evidence of commitment, rather than evidence of competent academic practice, including compliance with equality law, removing unnecessary barriers to participation, and supporting student access, success and progression.
Quite apart from higher-education regulation, there is also a potential employment-law dimension. If an EDI statement is used to mark down candidates who say, for example, “I treat students equally but do not advance ideological programmes”, or who articulate lawful gender-critical positions – for example, by referencing research on sex-based rights, safeguarding, or the importance of single-sex spaces in particular contexts – the university would risk straying into religion or belief discrimination under the Equality Act.
The legal risk, in other words, is not the existence of an EDI statement per se, but what the institution expects it to contain and how it is assessed.
In that context, CAF is asking London Met for two clarifications: first, whether EDI statements are used to disadvantage candidates who do not frame their academic work in terms of “advancing” institutional equality agendas, or who express lawful gender-critical views; and second, if the statement is not used in that way, on what basis the requirement is considered necessary at all, given that teaching competence, professional conduct, and compliance with equality law are already properly assessed through standard recruitment processes, including shortlisting, interview, and references.
In those circumstances, we are also asking the university to rewrite the wording accompanying the requirement so that it is neutral and does not operate, even inadvertently, as a test of ideological alignment.
This article forms part of the Committee for Academic Freedom’s monitoring of developments in UK higher education. To receive monthly updates and analysis on cases affecting academic freedom, click the link and subscribe to our newsletter.