AFFS activity
KCL’s requiring applicants for promotion to demonstrate their commitment to ideas they doesn’t agree with likely to be unlawful, say leading KC (and AFFS!)
(22.04.24) The campaign Sex Matters (https://sex-matters.org) has issued a statement about King’s College London (KCL) and its requirements relating to promotion, with a legal opinion from Akua Reindorf KC that this is highly likely to be unlawful.
This relates to concerns of an academic that the EDI (equality, diversity and inclusion) section of an application for promotion, which required applicants to demonstrate their commitment to ideas about sex and gender he doesn’t agree with, would count against him.
We support Sex Matters’ statement and agree with the Counsel’s opinion.
Earlier warning from AFFS
AFFS wrote to KCL on 30 November 2023, making similar points about these requirements (“KCL indicating that supporting certain contested viewpoints is a positive for promotion and other matters: free speech compliance failures”). Our letter can be found here: https://affs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/KCL-letter-re-free-speech-failures.pdf. Further information about this can be found here: https://affs.uk/campaign-news.
We received what appeared to be a brush-off from KCL, and concluded:
“We will not continue further at this point, we appreciate that you may consider it inappropriate to correspond in detail. But to note, for when this issue erupts as a proper scandal, there is a paper trail that KCL has been notified of likely illegality by an external whistleblower, as was the British Museum. We assume that you will be notifying your risk function of these issues.“
KCL was warned. What did it actually do about the concerns raised?
OfS guidance
The Office for Students (OfS) has produced draft Guidance about the application in practice of the new free speech protection provisions in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (HERA), when they come into effect on the 1 August 2024. We note that it contains the following specific paragraphs.
“57. Each [university] must take reasonably practicable steps to achieve the objective of securing that, where a person applies for academic promotion, the person is not adversely affected in relation to the application because they have exercised their freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, or to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions. The following may be reasonably practicable steps.
58. [Universities] should not require applicants for academic promotion to commit (or give evidence of commitment) to values, beliefs or ideas, if that may disadvantage any candidate for exercising their academic freedom within the law.”
Ie, this will be dealt with head on from 1 August. The tectonic plates are shifting!
Kings College London: row over disadvantaging those not actively supporting EDI agendas in promotion applications
(04.12.23) There has been a row about King’s College London (“KCL“) requiring applicants for promotion to submit information about their activity to support the university’s “equality, diversity and inclusion ambitions” and, in a list of appropriate examples, mentioning “participating in equality, diversity and inclusion activity” such as Stonewall and other LGBTQ groups.
We have written to KCL asserting that it appears that:
- Disadvantaging applicants because of their viewpoints, or not wanting to express support for organisations some of whose ideologies they, along with a substantial proportion the population, do not agree with;
- Seeking information in order to put themselves in a position to do the aforesaid; and
- creating a situation where people who seek (or are likely to seek) promotion at KCL think they need to visibly not dissent from, or even demonstrate adherence to and actively promote, an agenda aspects of which they do not necessarily agree with,
are unlawful under obligations to protect free speech and to avoid discrimination against or harassment of people with protected viewpoints under the Equality Act, which questioning aspects of Stonewall etc ideology now famously is following the Forstater case.
Our letter is worth a read, and sharing with friends, as it addresses an alarming aspect of contemporary university mores, and the principles it expounds will be widely applicable. Open here
BFSP is developing a detailed statement of this complex area of law and its implications, which we will share in due course.
KCL indicates that supporting certain contested viewpoints is a positive for promotion – probably in contravention of free speech law and the Equality Act
(1.12.23) There has been a row about King’s College London (“KCL”) requiring applicants for promotion to submit information about their activity to support the university’s “equality, diversity and inclusion ambitions” and, in a list of appropriate examples, mentioning “participating in equality, diversity and inclusion activity” such as Stonewall and other LGBTQ groups.
We have written to KCL asserting that it appears that:
- Disadvantaging applicants because of their viewpoints, or not wanting to express support for
organisations some of whose ideologies they, along with a substantial proportion the
population, do not agree with; - Seeking information in order to put themselves in a position to do the aforesaid; and
- creating a situation where people who seek (or are likely to seek) promotion at KCL think they
need to visibly not dissent from, or even demonstrate adherence to and actively promote, an
agenda aspects of which they do not necessarily agree with,
are unlawful under obligations to protect free speech and to avoid discrimination against or
harassment of people with protected viewpoints under the Equality Act, which means that questioning aspects of Stonewall etc. ideology are now protected following the now-famous Forstater case.
Our letter to KCL is worth a read, and sharing with friends, as it addresses an alarming aspect of
contemporary university mores, and the principles it expounds will be widely applicable. BFSP, our sister site, is developing a detailed statement of this complex area of law and its implications, which we will share in due course.
