University recruitment: EDI requirements causing free speech compliance failures
Universities which require applicants to roles to provide evidence of their support of EDI, or impose duties on their employees to promote or support EDI, are highly likely to be in breach of their obligations to protect free speech.
In recent years, free speech campaigners have encountered numerous examples of universities requiring applicants for jobs to provide evidence of their support for EDI (or get marked down on selection), or imposing duties on employees to promote or support EDI. “EDI” has become a broad, amorphous concept that includes contested viewpoints and agendas which are not required to be enforced by the Equality Act or other laws.
As a result, candidates and employees who do not agree with such viewpoints, as is their legal right, are discriminated against or discouraged from expressing their viewpoints. This is highly likely to be legally and regulatorily non-compliant.
AFFS has been, with the help of the Committee for Academic Freedom and other free speech organisations, conducting research into the 21 English and Welsh members of the Russell Group to clarify the extent of this issue, and applying pressure to universities which appear to be acting unlawfully in this regard.
Shockingly, across these leading universities:
- Eight required candidates to provide evidence of their commitment to “EDI” as part of the recruitment process – these are “EDI Support Evidence” failures.
- Eleven (including five of the above) imposed duties on candidates to support or promote EDI – these are “EDI Support Duties” failures.
- Only seven appear to be compliant, based on publicly-available information.
AFFS also conducted less detailed research into English and Welsh members of Universities UK, and has found that, out of the total of 108 universities reviewed:
- Over 45% are highly likely to be acting non-compliantly.
- A further 15 are seriously at risk of non-compliance, which, if this were indeed the case, would take the non-compliant total up to over 59%.
This level of non-compliance is not only a serious concern for academic freedom, and free speech generally, in the UK: it leads to serious financial and reputational harm for universities. Recent high-profile examples of the adverse implications of free speech failures – particularly at the Open University and Sussex University – are clear examples of the dangers of getting this wrong. Failure to comply with free speech obligations must be taken more seriously, both for the health of public debate, but also as a serious compliance issue for university administrations.
See our report here, for further detailed information about this project and our findings.
Why is EDI a problem for free speech? Why this project?
- Free speech non-compliance can have serious consequences for a university’s finances and reputation, as well as dampening free speech in their institutions.
- EDI has become a wide-ranging, ill-defined concept which includes viewpoints and agendas which can be controversial, and are not required by law to be enforced.
- As found by the Dandridge Review into the free speech failures at the Open University, EDI can cause free speech problems, and universities have failed to ensure that their obligations towards freedom of speech are balanced with their EDI agendas. This quickly leads to contraventions of legal and regulatory duties to protect free speech.
- Getting to the focus of this report, some universities require job applicants to evidence their “commitment” to EDI and/or mark candidates down who do not demonstrate sufficient levels of support, or impose duties on their employees about promoting and/or supporting EDI which go beyond what is legally justifiable. As a result, candidates and employees are discouraged from expressing their viewpoints on often controversial matters. This is highly likely to be legally and regulatorily non-compliant.
- Just 40% of universities reviewed by AFFS were found to be clearly fully compliant – from publicly-available information – meaning that the majority of universities may face serious financial and reputational penalties.
- All universities need to review their policies and processes as soon as possible, likely with the help of specialist external help, to ensure that they are compliant.
See our report for detail on why EDI is a problem for free speech, and why we have focused on EDI support requirements in recruitment.
Relevant legal and regulatory requirements
Our report explains in detail how requiring evidence of support for EDI, discriminating between candidates depending on the level of that support, and imposing requirements on employees to promote or support EDI, are highly likely to be contrary to universities’ legal and regulatory obligations.
Our findings
These are set out in detail in our report, but a brief summary (numbers of universities) is as follows.
Interpretation:
- Double Fail: universities that required candidates to submit EDI Support Evidence and comply with EDI Support Duties
- Evidence Fail: universities that required applicants to submit EDI Support Evidence
- Duties Fail: universities that required employees to comply with EDI Support Duties
- Compliant: universities with fully compliant policies and advertisements (as far as AFFS was able to see)
- At risk: universities that required employees to comply with university-specific EDI compliance duties: these may themselves be non-compliant with free speech regulations
What universities need to do
We hope this report will be seen as valuable in helping universities avoid future compliance failures in this area. Our report includes a long list of actions for universities to take, and AFFS is keen to support university management about how best to ensure free speech at their institution.
See our report here, for further detailed information about this project and our findings.
