Category: EDI

  • Gender governance and the global grammar of illiberal inclusion

    Gender governance and the global grammar of illiberal inclusion

    by Ourania Filippakou

    Across global higher education, the terms of justice, equality and inclusion are being rewritten. In recent years, the rollback of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the United States (Spitalniak, 2025) has unfolded alongside a global resurgence of anti-gender, ultra-nationalist, racialised and colonial politics (Brechenmacher, 2025). At the same time, the rise of authoritarian and far-right ideologies, together with deepening socioeconomic inequalities fuelled by an ascendant billionaire class (Klein and Taylor, 2025) and the growing portrayal of feminist and queer scholarship as ideological extremism (Pitts-Taylor and Wood, 2025), signal a profound shift in the rationalities shaping the politics of higher education. These developments do not reject inclusion; they refashion it. Equality becomes excess, dissent is recast as disorder, and inclusion is reconstituted as a technology of governance.

    This conjuncture, what Stuart Hall (Hall in Hall and Massey, 2010, p57) would call the alignment of economic, political and cultural forces, requires a vocabulary capable of capturing continuity and rupture. It also reflects the deepening crisis of neoliberalism, whose governing logics become more coercive as their legitimacy wanes (Beckert, 2025; Menand, 2023). As Hall reminds us, ‘a conjuncture is a period when different social, political, economic and ideological contradictions… or as Althusser said ‘fuse in a ruptural unity’’ (Hall in Hall and Massey, 2012, p57). A conjuncture, in this sense, does not resolve crisis but produces new configurations of ideological coherence and institutional control. In my recent article, ‘Managed Inclusion and the Politics of Erasure: Gender Governance in Higher Education under Neoliberal Authoritarianism’ (Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, 2025), I theorise these developments as a global grammar of illiberal inclusion: a political rationality that appropriates the language of equity while disabling its redistributive, democratic and epistemic force. The article develops a typology of symbolic, technocratic and transformative inclusion to examine how feminist, anti-caste and critical vocabularies are increasingly absorbed into systems of civility, visibility and procedural control. Transformative inclusion, the configuration most aligned with redistribution, dissent and epistemic plurality, is the one most forcefully neutralised.

    Across geopolitical contexts, from postcolonial states to liberal democracies, gender inclusion is increasingly appropriated not as a demand for justice but as a mechanism of control. The techniques of co-option vary, yet they consolidate into a shared political rationality in which equity is stripped of redistributive force and redeployed to affirm institutional legitimacy, nationalist virtue and market competitiveness. This is not a rupture with neoliberal governance but its intensification through more disciplinary and exclusionary forms. For example, in India, the National Education Policy 2020 invokes empowerment while enacting epistemic erasure, systematically marginalising the knowledges of women from subordinated caste, class and religious communities (Peerzada et al, 2024; Patil, 2023; Singh, 2023). At the same time, state-led campaigns such as Beti Bachao elevate women’s visibility only within ideals of modesty and nationalist virtue (Chhachhi, 2020). In Hungary, the 2018 ban on gender studies aligned higher education with labour-market imperatives and nationalist agendas (Barát, 2022; Zsubori, 2018). In Turkey, reforms under Erdoğan consolidate patriarchal norms while constraining feminist organising (Zihnioğlu and Kourou, 2025). Here, gender inclusion is tolerated only when it reinforces state agendas and restricts dissent.

    Elsewhere, inclusion is recast as ideological deviance. In the United States, the Trump-era rollback of DEI initiatives and reproductive rights has weaponised inclusion as a spectre of radicalism, disproportionately targeting racialised and LGBTQ+ communities (Amnesty International, 2024; Chao-Fong, 2025). In Argentina, Milei abolished the Ministry of Women, describing feminism as fiscally irresponsible (James, 2024). In Italy, Meloni’s government invokes ‘traditional values’ to erode anti-discrimination frameworks (De Giorgi et al, 2023, p.v11i1.6042). In these cases, inclusion is not merely neutralised but actively vilified, its political charge reframed as cultural threat.

    Even when inclusion is celebrated, it is tethered to respectability and moral legibility. In France, femonationalist discourses instrumentalise gender equality to legitimise anti-Muslim policy (Farris, 2012; Möser, 2022). In Greece, conservative statecraft reframes inclusion through familialist narratives while dismantling equality infrastructures (Bempeza, 2025). These patterns reflect a longer political repertoire in which authoritarian and ultra-nationalist projects mobilise idealised domestic femininity to naturalise social hierarchies. As historian Diana Garvin (Garvin quoted in Matei, 2025) notes, ‘what fascisms old and new have in common is they tend to look to women to fill in the gaps that the state misses’, with contemporary ‘womanosphere’ influencers in the US reviving fantasies of domestic bliss that obscure intensified gendered precarity (Matei, 2025).

    Such gendered constructions coexist with escalating violence. More than 50.000 women and girls were killed by intimate partners or family members in 2024, which means one woman or girl was killed every ten minutes, or 137 every day, according to the latest UNODC and UN Women femicide report (UNODC/UN Women, 2025). This sits within a wider continuum of harm: 83.000 women and girls were intentionally killed last year, and the report finds no sign of real progress. It also highlights a steep rise in digital violence, including harassment, stalking, gendered disinformation and deepfakes, which increasingly spills into offline contexts and contributes to more lethal forms of harm. These global patterns intersect with regional crises. For example, more than 7.000 women were killed in India in gender-related violence in 2022 (NCRB, 2023); eleven women are murdered daily in femicides across Latin America (NU CEPAL, 2024). At the same time, masculinist influencers such as Andrew Tate cultivate transnational publics organised around misogyny (Adams, 2025; Wescott et al, 2024). As UN Secretary-General António Guterres (2025) warns: ‘Instead of mainstreaming equal rights, we are seeing the mainstreaming of misogyny’.

    These global pressures reverberate across institutions that have historically positioned themselves as democratic spaces, including universities, which increasingly recast gender equity as a reputational risk or cultural flashpoint rather than a democratic obligation (D’Angelo et al, 2024; McEwen and Narayanaswamy, 2023). Equity becomes an emblem of modernity to be audited, displayed and curated, rather than a demand for justice. Ahmed’s (2012) theorisation of non-performativity is essential here: institutions declare commitments to equality precisely to contain the transformations such commitments would require. In this context, symbolic and technocratic inclusion flourish, while the structural conditions for transformative inclusion continue to narrow.

    These shifts reflect broader political and economic formations. Brown (2015) shows how neoliberal reason converts justice claims into performance demands, hollowing out democratic vocabularies. Fraser’s (2017) account of ‘progressive neoliberalism’ illuminates the terrain in which market liberalism coupled with selective diversity politics absorbs emancipatory discourse while preserving inequality. Patnaik (2021) argues that the rise of neofascism is a political necessity for neoliberalism in crisis, as rights are redefined as privileges and inclusion is repurposed to stabilise inequality. In this conjuncture, these tendencies intensify into what Giroux (2018, 2021, 2022a) names ‘neoliberal fascism’, a formation structured by three interlocking fundamentalisms: a market fundamentalism that commodifies all aspects of life, a religious fundamentalism that moralises inequality; and a regime of manufactured ignorance and militarised illiteracy that discredits critical thought and erases historical memory (Giroux 2022b, p48-54).

    The United States now offers a further manifestation of this global pattern, illustrating how attacks on DEI can function as a broader assault on higher education. As recent analyses of US politics show, the first and particularly the second Trump administration is actively modelling itself on Viktor Orbán’s illiberal statecraft, centralising executive power, purging public institutions and mobilising ‘family values’ and anti-‘woke’ politics to reshape education and media governance (Giroux, 2017; Smith, 2025; Kauffmann, 2025). The dismantling of DEI under the Trump administration, framed as a defence of merit, free speech and fiscal responsibility (The White House, 2025), marks the beginning of a wider attempt to consolidate political influence over higher education. Executive orders targeting DEI have been followed by lawsuits, funding withdrawals and intensified federal scrutiny, prompting universities such as Michigan, Columbia and Chicago to scale back equality infrastructures, cut programmes and reduce humanities provision (cf Bleiler, 2025; Pickering, Cosgrove and Massel, 2025; Quinn, 2025). These developments do not simply eliminate DEI; they position anti-gender politics as a mechanism of disciplining universities, narrowing intellectual autonomy and extending political control over academic life. They exemplify wider global tendencies in which inclusion becomes a field through which illiberal projects consolidate authority. The assault on DEI is thus not a uniquely American phenomenon but part of a broader authoritarian turn in which inclusion is recoded to stabilise, rather than challenge, existing power.

    Understanding gender governance in higher education through this conjunctural lens reveals not merely the erosion of equity but the emergence of a political formation that reconfigures inclusion into an apparatus of civility, visibility and administrative control. These tendencies are not aberrations but expressions of a larger global grammar that binds emancipatory rhetoric to authoritarian-neoliberal governance. The result is not the dilution of equality but its rearrangement as a practice of containment.

    The implications for the sector are profound. If inclusion is increasingly reorganised through metrics, decorum and procedural compliance, then reclaiming its democratic potential requires an epistemic and institutional shift. Inclusion needs to be understood not as a reputational asset but as a commitment to justice, redistribution and collective struggle. This means recovering equality as political and pedagogical labour: the work of confronting injustice, protecting dissent and renewing the public imagination. Academic freedom and equality are inseparable: without equality, freedom becomes privilege; without freedom, equality becomes performance.

    As Angela Davis (Davis quoted in Gerges, 2023) reminds us: ‘Diversity without structural transformation simply brings those who were previously excluded into a system as racist and misogynist as it was before… There can be no diversity and inclusion without transformation and justice.’ And as Henry Giroux (2025) argues, democracy depends on how societies fight over language, memory and possibility. That struggle now runs through the university itself, shaping its governance, its epistemic life and the courage to imagine more just and democratic possibilities.

    Ourania Filippakou is a Professor of Education at Brunel University of London. Her research interrogates the politics of higher education, examining universities as contested spaces where power, inequality, and resistance intersect. Rooted in critical traditions, she explores how higher education can foster social justice, equity, and transformative change.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • How we’re working across London to build a more diverse higher education leadership pipeline

    How we’re working across London to build a more diverse higher education leadership pipeline

    In 2021, I piloted a city-wide mentoring programme for global majority ethnic staff working in London universities.

    It was born from the bilateral North London Leadership Programme between London Metropolitan University and City St George’s, University of London. Four years later the Global Majority Mentoring Programme is flourishing – but world events show us that we need interventions like these as much as we ever did.

    The Global Majority Mentoring Programme is London Higher’s flagship commitment to championing equality, diversity and inclusion across the capital. It is a cross-institutional scheme that aims to improve career progression for global majority ethnic staff; give mentees a senior mentor from a different institution, outside their institutional hierarchy; and build professional networks across the capital to foster pan-London collaboration. Over 300 participants from 20 institutions have engaged with the scheme, with representation from small specialist institutions, large multi-faculty universities, and everything in between.

    London remains the most ethnically diverse region in the UK. Ten of London’s 32 boroughs (plus the City of London) have a majority non-white population. Newham is London’s most diverse borough, with a population that is 69.2 per cent non-white. In the boroughs of Brent, Redbridge, Harrow and Tower Hamlets, the figure is also above 60 per cent.

    You could also call the capital a microcosm of the wider HE sector. London has the largest concentration of diverse higher education providers in the country. A citywide initiative here has a real opportunity to effect meaningful and visible change. Our universities are proudly outward-looking and global, from research links to equitable international partnerships, yet they are also firmly rooted in place and contributors to local growth, regeneration and prosperity. However, lasting change doesn’t happen overnight; London’s higher education sector was not, and still is not, truly representative of the city it serves.

    Mentoring individuals from global majority ethnic backgrounds aligns with London-wide policy aims and ambitions: there’s a clear evidence base to support this. Along with the London Anchor Institutions’ Network, we’re striving to meet the clear priorities that have been set out for London’s post-pandemic recovery and regeneration, addressing systemic issues of social and economic unfairness. The London Growth Plan and upcoming Inclusive Talent Strategy encapsulate these priorities.

    Growing the pipeline

    We are all acutely aware of the wider narrative around EDI. The second Trump administration’s efforts in the US show us what can happen when a populist government takes up “anti-woke” as a cause. There may be disagreement about the form that EDI work should take and some people may fundamentally disagree with the legitimacy of EDI work as part of a public service agenda.

    However, in a sector in which there is a visible lack of diversity – in all its forms – that worsens, the further upstream in the talent pipeline you go, we need to continue to work to understand the practical and cultural barriers to leadership and drive to overcome them, learning together as we go. A theme that has consistently emerged throughout the programme is gaining a better knowledge of HE, and its systemic complexities and barriers.

    Mentoring programmes like ours create space and connections to make sense of personal experience and explore shared challenges. Participants report feeling a greater sense of empowerment and increased confidence. And tangible impacts on mentees include promotions, collaborations across universities, joint research bids, and even funded PhDs happening as a result of their participation in the scheme.

    Future-proofing

    Career progression and leadership opportunities were identified as key issues from the outset, so it seems appropriate that the programme is supported by Minerva, an executive search and recruitment firm specialising in education. As headhunters responsible for significant appointments, Minerva is in a position of influence to shape the composition of senior university leadership and their boards.

    The programme ensures that a diverse talent pool is in the Minerva team’s line of sight, and can understand more about the challenges global majority colleagues face in moving up the ladder. Minerva also runs yearly masterclass for participants to demystify the executive search process – providing insights into a world that is largely unknown to many of them. This includes a breakdown of recruitment, explanations of things such as the “informal coffee” interview stage, tips on negotiating, conveying a personal brand and profile raising.

    We also tailored a leadership development programme alongside the University of Westminster and Blue Whistle Learning that has been taken up internationally, in countries like the Philippines and South Africa.

    It is my hope that the initiatives like this are viewed not as political footballs or shiny nice-to-haves, but for what they are – interventions based on robust evidence that meet local and sectoral needs and broaden opportunities for collaboration.

    Higher education, especially in London, does not exist in a bubble. It is critical that universities continue to position themselves as integral to driving wider policy change in service of society. A more diverse sector does not mean a watered-down one – it means one that is informed by more voices and perspectives, and therefore better equipped to succeed in tackling the challenges laid out before it.

    This article is one of four exploring London Higher’s Global Majority Mentoring Programme – you can find the others here. 

    Source link

  • Higher education could make space for many types of leader and ways of leading

    Higher education could make space for many types of leader and ways of leading

    The Global Majority Mentoring Programme, delivered by London Higher, aims to support career progression for Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) staff by providing tailored mentoring relationships and learning opportunities for academics and professional services staff.

    I joined the programme as a mentee in 2023–24 while seeking support during my time as head of two merged divisions in the School of Law and Social Sciences. For me, mentoring is an exchange of knowledge and experience, and I was looking for a woman of colour in a leadership role outside my own institution with whom I could turn to for advice on navigating the unique challenges I was facing in confidence.

    The programme was recommended to me by a colleague who recognised that, as the only non-white member of the school leadership team, I faced specific challenges which, although acknowledged by the rest of the team, could only be supported to a limited extent given that the remainder of the team were white. They understood that someone with lived experience of both race and gender might be better placed to offer the kind of support I needed. I was matched with someone in an Associate Dean role who I met with regularly for three months. She validated my experiences especially when I was second guessing myself, she also offered me guidance and advice on navigating career progression and insights on HE headhunters.

    In addition to the mentoring, I also took part in the two-day Learning Leaders Workshop, delivered in partnership with the mentoring programme and the University of Westminster. I approached the workshop ambivalently while hoping it would offer more than the surface-level training I had experienced in the past. Previous programmes had often been underwhelming, failing to meet expectations and lacking depth. One in particular was overcrowded, with more than twenty participants, which made it difficult to engage in the kind of deep thinking that individual and collective inquiry needs.

    Surface pressure

    Reflecting on these past experiences, I began to question the broader purpose and structure of leadership development in higher education. Despite good intentions, many leadership development initiatives in higher education appear to remain disconnected from the structural changes reshaping the sector. And it is not always clear why line managers support staff participation in these programmes when, in practice, there appears to be limited opportunities to apply or build on the learning.

    This concern feels especially pressing now, as the sector undergoes significant transformation, with widespread voluntary redundancies affecting many institutions across the UK. I fear that higher education is losing emerging talent at an alarming rate. While the current focus is largely on financial viability, we may be overlooking a more profound long-term issue, the need to reimagine what leadership in higher education looks like. The urgency of building a future-focused leadership pipeline is growing, particularly as ongoing threats to equity, diversity and inclusion continue to challenge the sector’s values and resilience.

    Amid this context of uncertainty, where many of us are increasingly time-poor and juggling demanding workloads, I hoped the Learning Leaders workshop would offer a more meaningful and impactful experience. Taking time out of our busy schedules for training must feel worthwhile, rather than merely another tick-box exercise to meet 360 performance management targets. To my surprise, several aspects of the workshop turned out to be both unusual and thought-provoking.

    Leadership through lived experience

    Notably, there were just six of us in the room, all women, all from the global majority. Throughout the two days, I found myself reflecting on this. Why is it that I so often see more women than men who feel the need to be “trained up” for leadership? This prompted broader questions about gender, expectations and who is seen as ‘ready’ for leadership roles in our institutions. Women lead in many areas of life, particularly those of us who are parents or and carers. We are skilled problem-solvers, strong networkers, and we manage complex responsibilities every day.

    In my role as Head of Division, I noticed a recurring frustration among female academics who felt that the emotional labour involved in providing pastoral care to students often went unrecognised. There was a shared sense that this responsibility frequently fell to them, with both students and male colleagues appearing to expect them to take it on. Yet we rarely describe care and pastoral work as leadership.

    The programme was not a traditional form of training in any sense. Instead, it offered a series of facilitated sessions that created space for us to reflect, share, and learn from one another’s experiences. Together, we explored how we each learn which was presented in four quadrants – body, heart, mind, and spirit – and how to make the most of this intel within a team setting. This deeper understanding uncovered the strengths within our own leadership styles and helped us consider how best to apply them in our professional contexts. We took time to reflect on how leadership is defined and, more importantly, where it is learned and practised.

    Leadership, we came to understand, is not something taught in a conventional way but rather something that evolves through lived experience. It happens in both personal and professional settings, though we might not always recognise it as leadership in a formal or professionalised sense. The workshop took a holistic approach and illustrated how knowledge can emerge through embodied learning, incorporating philosophical inquiry to uncover deeper insights into our individual and collective strengths. This is when it occurred to me, for the first time, that developing leadership practice is best done in communities of practice.

    By the end of the two days, we weren’t “trained” by the facilitator in any traditional sense. Instead, the leadership wisdom we uncovered emerged from within our own group, the Super Six, which is what we have come to be known as and was brought to light through Keith’s expert and highly unconventional facilitation, which gently led us to that shared discovery.

    Many paths to leadership

    In hindsight, the Learning Leaders workshop gave me the space to actively explore the “what next” and “how next” of leadership. A series of thoughtful one-to-one conversations with one of the Super Six proved particularly impactful. Their questions led me to reflect deeply on new possibilities for academic leadership, including working as a freelance scholar, moving to a different institution, or stepping outside the sector altogether. I have always held a personal principle not to remain in one institution for more than ten years, out of concern for becoming institutionalised and limiting my professional growth. After several thoughtful conversations with my Dean, I came to the difficult but right decision to leave at the end of 2024.

    Since then, I have had the privilege of working with several universities and organisations from teaching, advising, researching and collaborating on projects – all of which have been intellectually energising and impactful. There is no one way to lead, and the Learning Leaders workshop reminded me that there are many paths to leadership, each shaped by context, values and personal experience.

    If there is any advice that I could offer to emerging leaders from global majority backgrounds, it would be to identify a sponsor with decision making power within the institution, a mentor outside of the university for confidential developmental advice and identify role models across different sectors and who do leadership well so you can begin building your own community of practice.

    This article is one of four exploring London Higher’s Global Majority Mentoring Programme – you can find the others here.

    Source link

  • More comprehensive EDI data makes for a clearer picture of staff social mobility

    More comprehensive EDI data makes for a clearer picture of staff social mobility

    Asking more granular EDI questions of its PGRs and staff should be a sector priority. It would enable universities to assess the diversity of their academic populations in the same manner they have done for our undergraduate bodies – but with the addition of a valuable socio-economic lens.

    It would equip us more effectively to answer basic questions regarding how far the diversity in our undergraduate community leads through to our PGT, PGR and academic populations, as well as see where ethnicity and gender intersect with socio-economic status and caring responsibilities to contribute to individuals falling out of (or choosing to leave) the “leaky” academic pipeline.

    One tool to achieve this is the Diversity and Inclusion Survey (DAISY), a creation of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Science and Health (EDIS) and the Wellcome Trust. This toolkit outlines how funders and universities can collect more detailed diversity monitoring data of their staff and PGRs as well as individuals involved in research projects.

    DAISY suggests questions regarding socio-economic background and caring responsibilities that nuance or expand upon those already in “equal opportunities”-type application forms that exist in the sector. DAISY asks, for example, whether one has children and/or adult dependents, and how many of each, rather than the usual “yes” or “no” to “do you have caring responsibilities?” Other questions include the occupation of your main household earner when aged 14 (with the option to pick from categories of job type), whether your parents attended university before you were 18, and whether you qualified for free school meals at the age of 14.

    EDI data journeys across the sector

    As part of an evolving data strategy, UCAS already collects several DAISY data points on their applicants, such as school type and eligibility for free school meals, with the latter data point is gaining traction across the university sector and policy bodies as a meaningful indicator for disadvantage.

    Funders are interested in collecting more granular EDI data. The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), for example, invested around £800 million in the creation of Biomedical Research Centres in the early 2020s. The NIHR encouraged the collection of DAISY data specifically on both the researchers each centre would employ and the individuals they would research upon, in the belief (see theme four of their research inclusion strategy) that a diverse researcher workforce will make medical science more robust.

    The diversity monitoring templates attached to recent UKRI funding schemes similarly highlight the sector’s desire for more granular EDI data. UKRI’s Responsive Mode Scheme, for example, requires institutions to benchmark their applicants against a range of protected characteristics, including ethnicity, gender, and disability, set against the percentage of the “researcher population” at the institution holding those characteristics. The direction of travel in the sector is clear.

    What can universities do?

    Given the data journeys of UCAS and funding bodies, it is sensible and proportionate, therefore, that universities ask more granular EDI questions of their PGRs and their staff. Queen Mary began doing so, using the DAISY toolkit as guide, for its staff and PGRs in October 2024, alongside work to capture similar demographic data in the patient population involved in clinical trials supported by Queen Mary and Barts NHS Health Trust.

    While we have excellent diversity in our undergraduate community, we see less in our PGR and staff communities, and embedding more granular data collection into our central HR processes for staff and admissions processes for PGRs allows us to assess (eventually, at least, given adequate disclosure rates) how far the diversity in our undergraduate population leads through to our PGT, PGR and academic population.

    Embedding the collection of more granular EDI data into central HR and admissions systems required collaboration across Queen Mary’s Research Culture, EDI, and HR teams, creating new information forms and systems to collect the data while ensuring it could be linked to other datasets. The process was also quickened by a clinical trials unit in our Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry who had piloted the collection of this data already on a smaller scale, providing a proof of concept for our colleagues in HR.

    EDI data and the PGR pipeline

    Securing the cooperation of our HR and EDI colleagues was made easier thanks to our doctoral college, who had already incorporated the collection of more granular EDI data into an initiative aimed at increasing the representation of Black British students in our PGR community: the STRIDE programme.

    Standing for “Summer Training Research Initiative to Support Diversity and Equity”, STRIDE gives our BAME undergraduate students the opportunity to undertake an eight-week paid research project over the summer, alongside a weekly soft skills programme including presentation and leadership training. Although the programme has run annually since 2020 with excellent outcomes (almost 70 per cent of the first cohort successfully applied to funded research programmes), incorporating more granular EDI questions into the application form for the 2024 cohort of 425 applicants highlighted intersectional barriers to postgraduate study faced by our applicants that would have been obscured had we only collected basic EDI data.

    Among other insights, 47 per cent of applicants to STRIDE had been eligible at some point for free school meals. This contrasts with our broader undergraduate community, 22 per cent of whom were eligible for free school meals. Some 55 per cent of applicants reported that neither of their parents went to university, and 27 per cent reported that their parents had routine or semi-routine manual jobs. Asking questions beyond the usual suite of EDI questions allows us here to picture more clearly the socio-economic and cultural barriers that intersect with ethnicity to make entry into postgraduate study more difficult for members of underrepresented communities.

    The data chimed with internal research we conducted in 2021, where we discovered that many of the key barriers to our undergraduates engaging in postgraduate research were the same as those who were first in family to go to university, namely lack of family understanding of a further degree and lack of understanding regarding the financial benefits of completing a postgraduate research degree.

    Collecting more granular EDI data will allow us to understand and support diversity that is intersectional, while enabling more effective assessment of whether Queen Mary is moving in the right direction in terms of making research degrees (and research careers) accessible to traditionally underrepresented communities at our universities. But collecting such data on our STRIDE applicants makes little sense without equivalent data from our PGR and academic community – hence Queen Mary’s broader decision to embed DAISY data collection into its systems.

    The potential of DAISY

    As Queen Mary’s experience with STRIDE demonstrates, nuancing our collection of EDI data comes with clear potential. Given adequate disclosure rates, collecting more granular EDI data makes possible more effective intersectional analyses of our PGRs and staff across our sector, and helps understand the social mobility of our PGRs and staff with more nuance, leading to a clearer image of the journey that those from less privileged social backgrounds and/or those with caring responsibilities face across our sector.

    More broadly, universities will always be crucial catalysts of social mobility, and collecting more granular data on socio-economic background alongside the personal data they already collect – such as gender, ethnicity, religion and other protected characteristics – is a logical and necessary next step.

    Source link

  • Support for action on ethnic and disability pay gaps demonstrates our commitment to our communities

    Support for action on ethnic and disability pay gaps demonstrates our commitment to our communities

    By mirroring gender pay gap reporting, which was made mandatory in 2018, the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill would introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for large employers with 250 or more employers.

    In his foreword to the consultation on introduction of the Bill, the Minister for Social Security and Disability Stephen Timms notes that the UK is far away from achieving its goal of creating a more equal society in which people can thrive whatever their background. According to the Office for National Statistics, the current ethnicity pay gap in the UK ranges from 1.9 per cent to 9.7 per cent, depending on ethnicity and if individuals were born in the UK.

    Diving into the data, we were concerned to find that no progress has been made in reducing the median gross hourly pay gap for Black, African, Caribbean or Black British employees compared to white employees, remaining “consistent since 2012”. The disability pay gap is even more pronounced, at 12.7 per cent, having remained “relatively stable since 2014.” The lack of progress in closing these pay gaps is as concerning as the lack of awareness of the problem.

    Conversely, the practice of gender pay gap reporting will have contributed to the gender pay gap declining by approximately a quarter among full-time employees over the past decade. Greater transparency helped build the foundations for positive transformation, creating a strategic imperative to root out systemic inequalities and leading to many employers developing, and proactively publishing, action plans to close the gap within their organisations.

    In pursuing the noble aim of creating a more equal – and socially cohesive – society, the same focus must now be placed on tackling racial and disability inequalities. Economic inequalities between ethnic groups are an important contributor to social unrest.

    The government should be supported in its proposed introduction of the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill and, speaking as vice chancellor of Birmingham City University (BCU), David would encourage fellow higher education leaders to join him in lending our public support to the government for this proposal.

    There are two key reasons for higher education institutions publicising their ethnicity pay gaps in particular: to build trust with their internal community, and to strengthen authentically social cohesiveness in their local communities.

    Building trust

    BCU’s new strategy articulates a clear commitment to improve the diversity of our organisation at all levels and eradicate pay gaps. The first step in this will be to publish all our pay gaps with a clear plan to close them by 2030.

    There are persistent racial inequalities in higher education. This is demonstrated most evidently in awarding gaps for ethnic minority students and Black students achieving a good honours degrees compared to white students, at 14.1 per cent and 21.6 per cent respectively in 2024. A lack of representation of ethnic minority staff in senior positions also conveys persistent inequities. Ethnic minorities now comprise one in three undergraduate students, but only one in four (20.2 per cent) of academic staff. Their representation is even lower among professors (15.1 per cent), senior managers (9.1 per cent) and executives (7 per cent).

    The picture is more concerning in terms of Black representation in higher education. One in ten undergraduate students is Black (9.6 per cent), but only one in every roughly 27 academics share their ethnic identity. Only 1.6 per cent of all professors are black and 0.7 per cent of executives.

    In contrast to the gender pay gap, information on the ethnicity pay gap in higher education is not routinely published. Combined with the lack of proportional representation of ethnic minority staff in senior positions, the lack of published data and strategy to tackle pay gaps has caused many staff to lose trust in institutional leadership and its commitment to tackle racial inequalities. The Equality (Race and Disability) Bill would bring parity with mandatory gender pay gap reporting and offer greater transparency to our communities.

    For reference, the median gender pay gap across higher education institutions, which stands at 11.9 per cent, reduced by 4.4 percentage points since reporting began in 2017.

    Community cohesion

    Universities play a crucial role in shaping their localities and are increasingly active in strengthening social cohesion – our institutions allow (mostly) young people to study in diverse settings, enable better understanding of different cultures, encourage active citizenship, and develop graduates who are more likely to show concern over racism, be more positive towards immigration, and less likely to view feminism as harmful. Our social mobility missions break cycles of poverty, research and innovation activities drive productivity, and graduates sustain vital public services.

    Working effectively with our diverse local communities necessitates trust and the transparent reporting of systemic racial inequalities is paramount. For BCU, this means better reflecting and working in partnership with a community in which no ethnic group has a majority; the 2021 census identified that Birmingham’s population is more than twice as likely to come from an ethnic minority than the overall population in England. 51.4 per cent of people living in Birmingham are from an ethnic minority group, compared to a national average in England of 19 per cent. The data is much more profound for Ladywood, the constituency in which BCU’s city centre campus is based. Here, more than three in four (76.6 per cent) come from an ethnic minority, with the greater proportions of Asian (38.6 per cent) and Black (25.9 per cent) than White (23.4 per cent) citizens.

    Birmingham’s “super-diversity” is seen as one of its biggest strengths, the city council opining that it stems from the city’s long-standing history for welcoming people from around the world. However, we must recognise that challenges persist, most notably in terms of engendering social harmony and tackling inequality. Those two challenges are interlinked: social harmony rests on our different racial and ethnic groups feeling valued and having trust in their local institutions providing equal opportunities and equitable outcomes, regardless of background.

    Our 2030 strategy sets out a clear vision to be an exemplar anchor institution by 2030. This vision was co-created with representatives from our communities, who recognise and value the crucial role that universities like ours play in their locality. Our strategy explicitly recognises the responsibility we have in strengthening social cohesion in our home city of Birmingham.

    From speaking with many vice chancellors, I know that we at BCU are not alone in championing our civic mission. Notwithstanding this, until we collective publish data on ethnicity pay gaps – alongside action plans to overcome these – our sector may find it difficult to build and sustain trust with our diverse internal and external communities. The Equality (Race and Disability) Bill offers a timely opportunity for our sector to demonstrate its commitment to racial justice.

    My fellow vice-chancellors would do well in voicing their support through this government consultation.

    The consultation on the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill closes on 10 June and can be accessed here.

    Source link

  • The implications for UK universities of Trump’s attacks on EDI

    The implications for UK universities of Trump’s attacks on EDI

    Few will be unaware of Donald Trump’s antipathy towards diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the US. In February 2025, Trump issued executive orders and policy directives aimed at eliminating DEI programmes and removing references to “gender ideology” from federal agencies.

    For those of us who know DEI as equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), there is concern about the ripple effects of Trump’s measures on UK universities, for research as well as teaching and learning.

    One of the immediate impacts of this manoeuvre was to remove essential LGBTQ+ content from federal websites. Terms such as “transgender”, “LGBT”, and “pregnant person” were all banned. Decades of HIV data, contraception guidelines, and research on racial health disparities were suddenly inaccessible. For US researchers in higher education, such staggeringly blatant anti-EDI policies have disrupted the passage of critical research focused on improving health outcomes for marginalised groups.

    Such censorship – to our minds at least – thoroughly undermines scientific integrity, limiting the study of complex health and social issues. Our colleagues in the US are now forced to work within these constraints, which threaten accuracy and inclusivity. Indeed, the politicisation of scientific terminology arguably damages public trust in research and, in the US, diminishes the credibility of federal agencies.

    Implications for LGBTQ+ researchers

    Trump’s anti-EDI stance is a menace to any form of university research seeking to address inequalities and build inclusion for seldom heard population groups, and the effects of these decisions will have wide-reaching and intersectional repercussions.

    As committee members of a university’s LGBTQ+ staff network, our focus is understandably on the impact for our colleagues working on LGBTQ+ issues. US-based researchers working on LGBTQ+ themes now face obstacles in securing funding and publishing their work. And this has a knock-on effect on wider LGBTQ+ population groups. The suppression of critical health information and the suspension of targeted research leaves LGBTQ+ communities bereft of vital support and resources.

    More fundamentally, Trump’s policies send the signal that LGBTQ+ identities and needs are irrelevant from his agenda for US growth. It’s a quick step from this to the increase of social stigma and discrimination targeted at LGBTQ+ people. And this in turn worsens mental health and social marginalisation. To put it bluntly: the absence of LGBTQ+ representation in official communications sends a damaging message about the validity of these communities’ experiences.

    Lessons for UK universities

    To bring this back to the UK context then, a few things come to mind.

    First, the UK has its own, depressingly recent, history of government-led suppression of LGBTQ+ communication, which we’d do well to remember. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools across England, Scotland, and Wales. Repealed in England and Wales in 2003, this act led to years of silence and marginalisation within educational settings.

    Section 28 not only harmed students and staff at the time but also created a culture of fear and misinformation, curtailing inclusive teaching and research. To ensure the UK does not repeat such history, universities must prioritise legal advocacy and protection for all involved in higher education, to safeguard academic freedom and inclusivity. Being involved in the LGBTQ+ staff network as we are, we might also add that coalition building among universities, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, and non-profits can also strengthen efforts to resist any potential policy shifts that might echo the restrictive measures of the past.

    Second, Trump’s agenda also urges us to re-think our approach to US-UK research collaborations and student exchanges. There seems to be an increasing discrepancy between what the UK and US each consider to be worthy of research and funding.

    Universities in the UK should assess how they foster links with other nations whose research agendas align more closely with UK priorities, to mitigate any potential funding losses. Moreover, UK universities should ideally review their reliance on external funding from the US to determine whether any existing projects might be impacted by shifts in US policy. Equally, with US suppression of data relating to LGBTQ+ issues impacting LGBTQ+ health and wellbeing, it’s vital that UK universities ensure that their research connected to LGBTQ+ issues is readily available.

    Third, it seems crucial that UK universities futureproof their relationships with US students. The possibility of new limitations on exchange programmes, including restrictions on modules with extensive EDI content, could impact the accessibility of UK higher education for US students. Online programmes that currently enrol US students may also face scrutiny, raising concerns about whether course content is monitored or whether degrees will continue to be recognised in the US due to their inclusion of EDI principles.

    Looking forward

    UK universities have a pivotal role to play in responding to what’s happening in the US in relation to Trump’s anti-EDI stance.

    We’ve focused particularly on the impacts of these political and policy shifts on LGBTQ+ research and culture in higher education. But they represent a more wholesale attack on initiatives seeking to safeguard the wellbeing of marginalised population groups. UK universities must continue to represent a safe space for education which upholds inclusivity, critical thinking, and academic integrity. This requires a strong coalition of organisations, advocacy groups, and academic institutions working together to resist the erosion of rights and the suppression of essential research.

    Such a coalition of critically-minded parties seems all the more important given the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on 16 April 2025 in relation to the Equality Act 2010, which insisted on the binary nature of sex, which is determined by biology. As a result, this leaves trans women unable to avail themselves of the sex-based protections enshrined in the Equality Act.

    Universities, like other institutions, will need to review their policies accordingly and should do their utmost to continue to assert a safe and inclusive environment for trans people. But this decision, coming so soon after the Cass review, is also contributing to the anxiety and uncertainty experienced by LGBTQ+ people more broadly. With echoes between the US situation and recent UK developments, the direction of travel is concerning.

    By standing together, we can safeguard the rights of all marginalised communities and ensure that the integrity of scientific research, human dignity, and social progress are protected.

    Source link

  • Sussex fined almost £600k over free speech

    Sussex fined almost £600k over free speech

    The University of Sussex is to be fined a record £585,000 over a failure to uphold free speech and academic freedom.

    The Office for Students (OfS) has found “significant and serious breaches” of free speech and governance issues at the University of Sussex.

    The regulator’s investigation, which followed the departure of academic Kathleen Stock from the university, says that said policies intended to prevent abuse or harassment of certain groups on campus had created “a chilling effect” that might cause staff and students to “self-censor.”

    OfS found that Sussex’s policy statement on “trans and non-binary equality” failed to uphold the principles of freedom of speech and academic freedom governance – and had created a “chilling effect” on campus.

    It also said the university failed to have “effective and adequate management and governance arrangements in place” to uphold those principles.

    Officially, OfS’ inquiry focused on the university’s general compliance with the regulatory framework, rather than the departure of Kathleen Stock specifically – but also found “no evidence to suggest that Professor Stock’s speech during her employment at the university was unlawful.”

    Sussex has come out fighting. Vice chancellor Sasha Roseneil told the Financial Times that universities are now exposed to regulatory risk if they have policies that protect staff and students from racist, homophobic, antisemitic, anti-Muslim or other abuse, and said the regulator had decreed “free speech absolutism as the fundamental principle” for universities.

    She also claims the regulator had “refused to speak to us,” and that the fine imposed was “wholly disproportionate” – arguing the university had defended Stock’s right to pursue her academic work and express her “lawful beliefs.”

    The report – some 1,224 days since OfS says it opened the investigation – comes at a tricky time for the government. Its decision first to pause, and then announce an intention to partially repeal the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, has to some extent been centred on concerns that the Act as passed represented a “hate speech charter” preventing universities from taking steps to protect marginalised groups on campus.

    OfS’ decision – notwithstanding that it is one taken in the context of a previous and pre-existing legal framework – will therefore be widely seen as rebuttal of the idea that protection of that sort conflicts with free speech and academic freedom.

    But on the other side of that argument is Sussex itself – experiencing OfS’ fifth ever fine, and arguing that OfS’ decision will itself have a chilling effect on efforts to:

    …prevent abuse, harassment or bullying, to protect groups subject to harmful propaganda, or to determine that stereotyped assumptions should not be relied upon in the university curriculum.

    Kathleen Stock left her post as Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex in October 2021, shortly after which the Office for Students (OfS) announced that it had opened an investigation focused on whether or not the university had met its obligations for academic freedom and freedom of speech within the law for all students and staff, whatever their views.

    Although Stock and her departure from Sussex has become easily the most-referenced example used to illustrate the need for the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, it had at that stage only recently completed its run in the Commons – so the investigation opened by OfS was over whether the university had complied with general ongoing conditions E1 and E2 – which, in the original Jo Johnson design, were designed to give regulatory force to the “public interest governance principles” for academic freedom and freedom of speech.

    This report outlines how OfS determined breaches of conditions E1 and E2, how penalties were calculated, and raises concerns that the university may have breached broader legal duties on free speech and academic freedom. Here there’s a short background, a look in detail at the report itself, and what it might mean for the campus culture wars in coming years.

    Background

    In late 2021 at the University of Sussex – a campus with a long history of radical politics – a group of students describing themselves as queer, trans, and non-binary had mounted a campaign calling for Stock’s dismissal.

    Responding both to her teaching and books, they claimed she was espousing a “bastardised version of radical feminism that excludes and endangers trans people.” Posters and protests ensued, Stock reported receiving death threats and was advised by police to take safety precautions, and the university’s vice chancellor, Adam Tickell (now at Birmingham) defended Stock’s academic freedom and announced an investigation into the protests.

    More than 200 academic philosophers from across the UK went on to sign an open letter supporting Stock’s right to “engage in open and scholarly debate without fear of harassment,” but notably the Sussex branch of the University and College Union (UCU) criticized Tickell’s stance, expressing solidarity with the protesting students and calling for an investigation into “institutional transphobia” at the university.

    Stock resigned on 28 October, and in a subsequent radio interview on Woman’s Hour, she denied being transphobic, and explained that her resignation followed attacks from colleagues who opposed her views and who, according to Stock, encouraged an “extreme” response from their students. Stock also said that it was the UCU statement that had “effectively ended” her career at Sussex.

    What was novel about the affair is that while there had been quoted incidents of “mobbing,” “cancellation,” and “no platforming,” these had tended to be focused on figures outside of universities, visiting as speakers.

    Since the Education Act 1986 had started to require to universities to “take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers,” it had been the last of that list that had caused that legislation – and the last of that list that had largely generated skirmishes since.

    But when Arif Ahmed – now OfS’ Director for Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech, then a fellow philosopher at the University of Cambridge – wrote for Index on Censorship in early 2022, he noted a new character to conflict on campus. Ahmed picked up other cases – the 500 students that had petitioned Oxford University to force two professors to include trans women in their research into women’s equality, and the academics that had had talks cancelled at Essex University after they were accused of transphobia.

    Not wanting to “anticipate what that inquiry finds,” the article also argued that in principle, there may be academic freedom issues on both sides, including “the right of students (or anyone else) to protest against her” – albeit that:

    …we must distinguish peaceful protest in favour of a principle like rights for trans people… harassment and victimisation of an individual aimed at blocking their speech.

    That often fraught line – between freedom to speak (and research), and freedom from harm – is both as old as John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859), and one that has dogged the debate about campus culture generally and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act specifically ever since. Where a regulator might draw the line has been an open question – and the report now illustrates it clearly.

    An inspector calls

    On 7 October 2021, OfS contacted the university seeking information on what steps it had taken to protect free speech and academic freedom for Kathleen Stock and others with similar views, and how it had assessed whether the incident amounted to harassment based on her gender critical beliefs. After reviewing this and examining relevant policies, it formally launched an investigation on 22 October.

    The investigation focused on whether the university had taken reasonably practicable steps to uphold lawful free speech and academic freedom, whether its governance documents complied with OfS public interest principles and legal duties (including under the Equality Act 2010), and whether its policies – particularly those on academic freedom, HR, and EDI – had negatively impacted free expression.

    It imposed “cooperation requirements,” reviewed multiple rounds of documentation, and considered policy changes made during the process. Provisional findings were shared in March 2024, and final decisions were made on 14 February 2025 after considering the university’s response.

    The first breach – of Condition E1 – concerns the university’s governing documents, and the way in which OfS says they restricted lawful speech – including “gender critical” views, which are protected under the Equality Act 2010.

    OfS says this created a chilling effect – discouraging staff and students from expressing certain views. Though not officially about Stock’s case per se, it’s cited as a real-world example – OfS taking the opportunity to remind readers of its role in safeguarding lawful free speech through a viewpoint-neutral, “impartial” approach.

    The university first adopted a Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement in November 2018. On 12 November, a proposal was made to publish it on 20 November – Trans Day of Remembrance. The draft was reviewed by the University Executive Group (UEG) on 13 November, which supported its general direction, but called for further discussion after review by the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committee.

    Despite this, the UEG held an unscheduled meeting on 14 November 2018, during which it approved the statement for publication on 20 November. No separate minutes were recorded for this meeting. That 2018 version remained in effect when OfS began its investigation in October, and is the main source of the compliance problem.

    Some tricky timeline issues ensue which relate to later revisions, and OfS has not yet determined whether one of its identified breaches has extended beyond March of last year.

    But essentially, the judgement centres on four aspects of different versions of the university’s policy – which it’s counting here for E1 purposes as one of the university’s governing documents:

    • A requirement for “any materials within relevant courses and modules [to] positively represent trans people and trans lives.” OfS refers to this as the Positive Representation Statement throughout its report;
    • A statement that “the curriculum shall not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people”. It refers to this as the Stereotyping Statement;
    • A statement that “transphobic propaganda … will not be tolerated.” It refers to this as the Transphobic Propaganda Statement;
    • A statement that “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying (name-calling/derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures.” It refers to this as the Disciplinary Statement.

    OfS’ conclusion is that the university breached E1 because the four statements breached the academic freedom and freedom of speech principles.

    That’s partly because the statements were capable of restricting lawful speech – including in-course content – and signalled that some views weren’t welcome. This, says OfS, produced a chilling effect – Stock self-censored, and others likely did too. She removed lawful material from her curriculum, narrowing academic debate and reducing students’ exposure to diverse views. Other staff may have followed suit or felt pressured to.

    Its argument is that the policy lacked safeguards for legally protected beliefs like “gender critical” views and that its other governing documents didn’t fill that gap. The university’s wider “Statute VII” offered some protection for free speech and academic freedom, but in OfS’ view was insufficient.

    Partly because the investigation has been on for a long time – and partly because the university has been making changes to policies throughout – there’s also some complex evaluation of what’s happened since the initial investigation opened, all of which is of a similar nature.

    See-saw

    Much of the material on wider legal duty breaches is focussed on gender critical views as a protected belief – anyone searching for the ways in which OfS might have evaluated efforts to protect trans students just won’t find it.

    Hence OfS found no “credible evidence” that the university assessed whether its restrictions on expression under the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement were proportionate – a key requirement under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights – that it says raised the risk that the policy’s interferences with freedom of expression were disproportionate and therefore unlawful.

    Similarly, OfS was concerned the university may have breached equality law under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 by indirectly discriminating against individuals with gender critical beliefs – a protected characteristic. The Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement included provisions (e.g. the Positive Representation, Stereotyping, Transphobic Propaganda, and Disciplinary Statements) that it says restricted lawful speech, including gender critical views. Again, OfS found no credible evidence that the university conducted an objective justification assessment for the restrictions when adopting the policy.

    OfS was also concerned that the university may have failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). It found no credible evidence that the university properly considered the equality implications of the policy, as required under the PSED, and while the university claimed to have conducted an Equality Impact Assessment for the 2023 version, this appeared limited to the removal of the Positive Representation Statement and did not assess the remaining content.

    Taken as a whole, this is a pretty extensive illustration of the principle both in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 and OfS’ draft guidance on it – both on “particular regard” to the importance of freedom of speech, and these two notable paras in the draft:

    Freedom of speech within the law is protected. Unlawful speech is not protected. However, there is no need to point to a specific legal basis for speech. Instead, the starting point is that speech is permitted unless restricted by law.

    Free speech includes lawful speech that may be offensive or hurtful to some. Speech that amounts to unlawful harassment or unlawful incitement to hatred or violence (for instance) does not constitute free speech within the law and is not protected.

    There are likely to be debates about the extent to which that was clear to providers in the old regime, and whether the new regime is merely an enforcement wrapper around pre-existing legal duties – but that’s the framing in use in this decision.

    A record (reduced) fine

    The fining decision is then explained in in line with Regulation 4 of the 2019 Monetary Penalties Regulations, where OfS considered several factors – the nature, seriousness, duration, and impact of the breach; any financial or other benefit the university may have gained or losses it avoided; and whether the breach had been repeated.

    OfS assessed that the breach was “serious, prolonged, and had a chilling effect on lawful speech and academic freedom” – and while no direct financial gain was identified, the regulatory failure was significant enough to warrant a monetary penalty to reflect the severity and ensure accountability.

    In setting the penalty, OfS also considered steps the university took to prevent future breaches and the likely impact of a monetary penalty on students. A “baseline penalty” was established as per Regulation 4, then adjusted based on aggravating and mitigating factors, including the university’s compliance history. The maximum penalty allowable was either 2 per cent of qualifying income or £500,000, whichever was higher.

    For 2023–24, Sussex’s qualifying income was £232,358,874, making the cap £4,647,177. OfS applied its published framework (Regulatory Advice 19) to determine the final penalty, ensuring it was “proportionate, targeted, and justified” in light of the breach’s seriousness and the steps taken by the university since.

    The university’s financial position was relevant – with (at the time) substantial income and reserves, OfS concluded that a penalty would not materially harm students. Instead, it would promote future compliance, both at Sussex and, notably, across the sector. The baseline penalty was set at 0.9 per cent of qualifying income: £2,091,230.

    Mitigating factors included steps taken by the university to reduce the restrictive effect of its policy like removing the “positive representation” requirement, adding an objective definition of “transphobic abuse,” and including a safeguard for academic freedom in the 2023 policy.

    Aggravating factors included the length of the breach (over four years) and the failure to self-report. After applying both sets of factors – each justifying a 0.2 per cent adjustment in opposite directions – the penalty remained unchanged at 0.9 per cent.

    The university’s compliance history did not warrant any further adjustment. It cooperated with the investigation and there was no evidence of dishonesty, recklessness, or concealment. Accordingly, after the first three steps of the process, the final penalty for the breach remained £2,091,230.

    Governance and delegation

    The second breach (Condition E2) was a process one – key policies were adopted by groups lacking the delegated authority to do so. The Prevent Steering Group approved the 2021 Freedom of Speech Code of Practice, the University Executive Group approved the 2023 External Speakers’ Procedure, and also approved the 2022 and 2023 versions of the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement – each time acting outside its remit.

    These governance failures were deemed significant. Decisions were made by bodies not authorised to take them, raising the risk of insufficient scrutiny or expertise and potentially compromising compliance with legal and regulatory duties. Those failures, found OfS, could result in decisions not in the best interests of staff or students. The breach was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern suggesting “systemic weaknesses rather than a one-off lapse.”

    The university didn’t report the breach to OfS (the old Kafka-esque rules around the reportable events regime), nor has it taken clear steps to address or rectify its governance failures. As such, OfS concluded that its intervention factors supported a breach of condition E2(i), and that regulatory action was necessary to address the university’s ongoing non-compliance with its own governance framework.

    This time the baseline penalty was 0.5 per cent of the university’s qualifying income (£1,161,794) for the E2 breach, reflecting its seriousness as a governance failure. While the decisions made without proper authority risked poor quality outcomes, the direct impact on students was assessed as less severe than the E1 breach, and the penalty was also viewed as a means to incentivise future compliance, both at Sussex and across the sector.

    Because of aggravating factors – like the longstanding nature of the breach, failure to report it, and lack of remedial steps – the penalty was increased by 0.2 percentage points, bringing it to 0.7 per cent (£1,626,512). No mitigating factors were identified.

    As with the E1 breach, the university’s compliance history didn’t affect the penalty, and it had cooperated with the investigation – but OfS ultimately concluded that penalties at the calculated levels would be disproportionately high. And so balancing all considerations – the seriousness of the breaches, financial capacity, cumulative penalty size, and the novelty of regulatory enforcement in this area – OfS reduced the final penalties and imposed £360,000 for the E1 breach and £225,000 for the E2 breach, totalling £585,000.

    This was deemed “sufficient” to deter future non-compliance while maintaining financial sustainability. Sussex says the fine is “wholly disproportionate.”

    Fallout and next steps

    There will doubtless be some fallout from the decision – not least because Sussex is (at least in principle) very publicly criticising the process, the fine, and the judgement made on the EDI/freedom of speech see saw.

    In some ways what’s surprising – although on reflection inevitable – is that this wasn’t really an investigation about the Stock affair at all. She and others calling for full implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act may well argue that the investigation ought to have handled how she was treated, how she was protected (or otherwise) by the university, and drawn conclusions about the handling of events leading to her departure. OfS may well argue – campaigners almost certainly will – that that would only have been possible under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.

    There are real questions over how long the process has taken, that are not substantially addressed or answered in the report – and the huge fine imposed. That OfS is able to follow the logic of its own documents is one thing, but when compared against some of the teaching and learning investigations it’s done so far, either those providers are in for huge fines, or inevitable comparisons are going to be drawn about relative impact.

    There will also be questions about Arif Ahmed himself. The report dots the Is and crosses the Ts as we would expect it to – and includes the “neutrality” defence we’ve come to recognise. But even though he’s unlikely to have been personally involved in this process, we should be reminded of the OIA’s advice that providers need to take steps to avoid “actual bias and the reasonable perception of bias” when handling complaints. Given in a previous role that Index on Censorship blog was entitled “We academics must fight the mob – now”, it’s not hard to see why some might at least perceive an agenda.

    The other questions surround the jurisprudence. It remains the case that in the cases we’ve seen, different levels of protection for freedom of speech apply in different contexts – there’s no doubt that in a lecture hall or seminar room, the way the Human Rights Act is applied is different to during someone’s personal life, free time, and so on. There’s nothing in here on the different contexts of conduct that a “university” encompasses – and it remains a hole in what OfS has published so far, and arguably in the way it has evaluated the policies for the breaches.

    The practical compatibility of the decision with impending heavy duties on harassment will also be a concern – with frantic rewrites of policies similar in nature and tone to that adopted by Sussex likely to face pushback from those who fear a wider retreat from equality-focussed work.

    It’s the government, though, that faces the trickiest set of decisions from here on in. Its decision to pause and intent to soften somewhat the Act has all been about a perception that it was to result in free speech absolutism at the expense of the protection of minorities.

    It may be a reflection of the law or a very particular (and contestable) interpretation of it – and legal challenges may ensue – but if nothing else, it’s hard to see how the version of “absolutism” deployed here is compatible with (for example) the IHRA definition of antisemitism – something successive governments have consistently supported, and which Ahmed himself only changed position on when taking up his role.

    Notwithstanding that Labour has disappointed trans campaigners since taking office, it will now have to decide whether Sussex is right that universities are now “exposed to regulatory risk if they have policies that protect staff and students from racist, homophobic, antisemitic, anti-Muslim or other abuse.” And if they are, whether the problem is the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, the Human Rights Act, or Arif Ahmed himself.

    Source link

  • To accelerate action on gender equality, we must consider both sides of the coin. #IWD2025

    To accelerate action on gender equality, we must consider both sides of the coin. #IWD2025

    It’s International Women’s Day. Today on the site, Professor Lisa-Dionne Morris explores the critical role of Black women in academia and industry leadership, particularly in Engineering and STEM, highlighting their groundbreaking contributions and the systemic barriers that persist. Read that piece here.

    Below, HEPI’s own Rose Stephenson challenges us to look at ‘the other side of the coin’ in the fight for gender equality – you can read that piece below.

    Firstly, Happy International Women’s Day 2025.

    The theme this year is ‘Accelerate Action.’ It’s a great theme, and to accelerate action in terms of gender equality, we have got to focus more on ‘the other side of the coin’. Let me explain three examples:

    1. We should do more to ensure that parenting is supportive and inclusive of fathers.

    Joeli Brearly, outgoing CEO of Pregnant then Screwed, recently gave evidence on Shared Parental Leave in parliament. She stated:

    ‘It’s time we asked ourselves a fundamental question about what sort of society we want this to be. Do we want to continue to perpetuate outdated and harmful gender stereotypes that tell us it is women who do the nurturing and the caring and the childrearing and are the homemakers and that men just need to pull their socks up and get back to work? They are strong, stoic breadwinners and don’t need this time [parental leave] to nurture and care for their family. The mental health of men in this country is in crisis. Boys are saying they feel lost and disconnected, and it’s no wonder when our laws are literally telling them: “you don’t need time to nurture and connect with your family.”’

    Inclusive parenting is good for dads, it’s great for kids, and it benefits Mums, too. My mantra is, ‘We will never have equality in the workplace until we have equality in the home’. Until we reach a point where an equal number of dads leave work in time for the school run, take time off for holiday care, or work part-time and flexibly, we will never reach parity in the workplace. And why would we want to? If women collectively reach equal pay, equal status and the resulting equal responsibility at work yet continue to shoulder most domestic and childcare duties, we have significantly undermined progress towards equality.

    The HEPI report I published last year, Show Me the Money, an exploration of the gender pay gap in higher education, demonstrated the importance of increasing paid paternity leave as a lever for narrowing the gender pay gap. If your institution is monitoring the uptake of senior or professorial roles by gender, are they also monitoring the uptake of post-birth parental leave, shared parental leave and statutory parental leave by the same measure? Is there monitoring and reporting on the genderisation of part-time work applications, flexible working requests and the granting of these requests? That is ‘the other side of the coin’ and we should not underestimate the hurdles fathers may have to overcome to ask – or be granted – the flexibility we more commonly expect for mothers.

    2. We should encourage boys and young men to work in teaching and social care roles to the same extent that we encourage women to work in engineering and tech.

    When working as a secondary and sixth-form science teacher, I undertook a project at my school that challenged pupils to critically think about the subject choices they were making at GCSE and A-Level and how this might be affected by gender stereotyping. There was plenty of support and encouragement for female pupils in science and maths subjects (as there should be). However, there was a notable vacuum in the equivalent campaigns to open up opportunities for boys.

    I witnessed first-hand how the gendering of subjects and occupations suppressed the potential of young men. One boy in my tutor group desperately wanted to complete his work experience at a hair salon. This pupil would have benefitted from a ‘hook’ that could have driven his interest in education and the future world of work. Unfortunately, his family disapproved of his choice, and he spent his work experience on a building site. This did nothing to enhance his motivation towards education or work. This was a valuable opportunity for a disengaged young man to pursue something that genuinely sparked his interest, and I have no doubt he would have excelled at. However, this opportunity was lost because it was not deemed ‘masculine’ enough. This was one example, but the boys I taught were quite open about feeling they couldn’t choose the subjects they wanted. There was an element of ‘acceptable’ choices.

    It is tragic that in 2025, UK society is still limiting the possibilities for young men to follow their real interests. As a sector, we should push hard against the narratives perpetuating this. Again, if your institution is monitoring and encouraging the uptake of subjects such as engineering or coding for female students, are they also monitoring the update of nursing courses by male students? Are there considerations of male uptake and completion of courses in your Access and Participation Plans?

    3. We should consider developing ‘Men’s Leadership’ courses.

    I’ve been lucky enough to partake in various forms of ‘Women’s Leadership training’ run by Advance HE and the Women’s Higher Education Network (WHEN), among others. Of course, non-gender-specific leadership training is available. However, women’s leadership courses have existed due to the historic and ongoing underrepresentation of women in leadership positions. Further, they provide a female-only space for women to develop their leadership skills.

    I vividly remember being told by a presenter on the Advance HE Aurora programme to ‘have heft’ and ‘take up space’. (I replay this memory regularly in all the privileged but occasionally intimidating speaking and media events I undertake in my current role.)

    But as we move closer towards gender parity – and I know there is more work to do – should we be thinking about the other side of the coin? Women’s leadership courses can often focus on developing traits deemed to be held by traditional, therefore male, leaders. Having more confidence, making your voice heard, etc. Now that most of society accepts that women can also make great leaders – and there are many stand-out examples in the higher education sector – where is the equivalent training for men?

    Where are the male leadership courses that teach men the skills of making space for others, speaking inclusively, building relationships, the importance of being a mentor, and using coaching techniques to build confidence in their colleagues? Surely, some male colleagues who wish to become leaders can learn skills that may be (stereotypically) more prevalent in female colleagues, and developing these skills would benefit everyone.

    And sure, some men will already possess these skills, just like some women have a natural ability to take up space. My question is, if we accept that women are socialised in a particular way to be missing some leadership or workplace skills, then can we accept that for men? Do we value stereotypically ‘female’ leadership skills enough to offer a platform for developing these skills in male colleagues? Further, should leadership courses for men include panels discussing how to balance leadership roles with childcare responsibilities? (And yes, those panels exist in women-in-leadership courses) Perhaps when we get to this point, we really will be considering the other side of the coin.

    If you found this blog interesting, you may wish to look back at some of our previous International Women’s Day blogs:

    HEPI has also published the report:

    HEPI will soon publish an updated report on educational achievement by boys and young men, a significant and long-standing issue that has been largely ignored by policymakers. The report considers the consequences for individuals and societies and proposes several levers that could be used to drive change. This report will be published this month – March 2025. If you haven’t already, sign up for our blog below to get this report hot off the press.

    If you wish to write a blog for International Men’s Day on November 19th, submissions are very welcome.

    Source link

  • Ramadan should matter to higher education

    Ramadan should matter to higher education

    Ramadan celebrates the revelation of the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an, to the Prophet Muhammad.

    One of the five pillars of Islam is fasting (abstaining from all food and drink) during daylight hours in this holy month.

    In the UK, approximately 321,000 (11 per cent) students identify as muslim, which is the largest religious group after christian students (27 per cent).

    However, in a recent survey of nearly 300 UK educators, almost a quarter of them couldn’t say when Ramadan took place in 2024. A quarter also didn’t know whether they had any muslim students in their classes.

    Only 30 per cent knew the exact dates of Ramadan, and 47 per cent could only guess approximately. Worryingly, 40 per cent of respondents had no idea whether their muslim students were fasting, and despite 56 per cent acknowledging a need for change in teaching practices, only half of them had actually made any adjustments.

    This is concerning – because the practice of Ramadan will undoubtedly impact muslim students’ ability to engage with their studies among those who are able to observe it.

    The ninth month of the Islamic calendar

    Throughout Ramadan, priorities may shift towards personal worship and devotion, as well as family and community.

    They are more likely to require time to pray during the day, and to be absent to celebrate Eid at the end of Ramadan.

    Changes to muslim students’ routines to enable them to take part in pre-dawn meals and night prayers may also impact their learning. The effects of Ramadan will also fluctuate during a given day as well as through the fasting period.

    You can gain an insight into Ramadan from a students’ perspective in this video, produced by Oxford Brookes University.

    A prevalent myth is that staff should avoid eating and drinking in front of fasting students. This is not necessary – muslim students respect the need for others to eat and drink and generally do not expect others to alter their behaviour.

    However, it is considerate to avoid organising social events centred around food and drink during Ramadan.

    Another misconception is the belief that students will automatically request support or adjustments if needed. In reality, students may not be aware of their rights to reasonable adjustments on religious grounds, or they might not feel comfortable making those sorts of requests.

    Staff should openly communicate institutional policies regarding religious observance and encourage students to discuss their needs without fear of judgement or disadvantage.

    Fasting doesn’t affect all students in the same way. Not all muslim students fast – some may be exempt due to health reasons, travel, or other personal circumstances. The effects of fasting can also vary, with some students managing well while others may struggle, particularly during the holiest last ten days of Ramadan.

    Evidence regarding the impact on learning of fasting during Ramadan is mixed. It can have different impacts on cognitive functioning depending on whether students are studying in predominantly muslim countries or not.

    In terms of the impact of disrupted sleep routines and a lack of sleep on learning, the evidence is fairly robust, with multiple studies showing a negative impact. This sleep disruption when observing Ramadan could potentially have a greater impact on students’ learning than fasting itself.

    Unfortunately, the limited guidance available on most institutional webpages in the UK seems to be aimed at muslim students themselves, putting the onus on them to seek support or adjustments. This positioning takes away some of the responsibility of institutions to amend practices and policies to support these students.

    Supporting muslim students

    With these issues in mind, I led a project to find out what educators proactively do to support muslim students.

    Based on our findings, and with contributions from a panel of muslims and other experts, we created a guide containing information and practical support for educators to implement in their classrooms. The guide is available to download from the National Teaching Repository.

    In the guide we have:

    • included an email template (page 9) that you can adapt to send to all students to acknowledge Ramadan
    • included a link to free printable posters about Ramadan to display on campus
    • busted common myths, for example around eating and drinking
    • provided 6 ways to make relatively small changes to learning and teaching practices that could make a big difference. These include 1) Acknowledge Ramadan, 2) Avoid Assumptions and Ask, 3) Adjust Assessment Timings, 4) Offer Asynchronous Learning, 5) Raise Awareness and Celebrate, and 6) Be Inclusive and make Sustainable Change.
    • given some guidance relating to supporting students who are on a work placement

    Supporting muslim students on work placements during Ramadan presents unique challenges and opportunities. The guide encourages conversations with placement coordinators and managers early to explore what accommodations might be available, such as flexible scheduling to allow for prayers or adjusted meal breaks to accommodate Suhoor (pre-dawn meal) and Iftar (meal to break the fast).

    It also highlights the importance of understanding the potential impact of such accommodations not only on students but also on clients, patients, or service users in placement settings, ensuring that any adjustments made are both supportive and practical.

    Organising a three-way meeting between the placement provider, the student, and the academic lead can help surface specific issues and create tailored solutions. And constructing a formal policy for supporting fasting students on placements could serve as a blueprint for sustainable, long-term change.

    More broadly, institutions could formalise their approach by adding “religious observance” as a standing agenda item in relevant committees and planning meetings. This would ensure that religious inclusion is not treated as an afterthought but as an integral part of institutional decision-making.

    Working with university chaplaincies is another recommendation – chaplains often have direct connections with religious student groups and can provide valuable insights into their needs. Ideally the sector would move beyond fixes and towards normalising religious inclusivity, reduce barriers to learning, and demonstrate a genuine commitment to equity and fairness.

    We hope that the guide will make it relatively easy for educators to take some immediate positive action, and that even a small change will make a positive difference by increasing a sense of belonging and mattering to our muslim students.

    Source link

  • There are real people underneath the labels we attach

    There are real people underneath the labels we attach

    When I first arrived in Dundee, I anticipated an academic journey that would challenge my perspectives and expand my knowledge.

    What I didn’t foresee was how profoundly it would transform my understanding of identity and belonging, compelling me to reexamine my sense of self and my place in broader societal structures.

    Having moved from India to pursue a Master of Education (MEd) in the UK, this journey not only offered a world-renowned education but also a deeply personal exploration. I encountered labels—both explicit and implicit—that reshaped how I viewed myself and how others perceived me.

    A year after graduating, with distinction, this reflection examines the unintended consequences of such labels, navigating an evolving sense of identity and belonging, and how higher education institutions could approach identity.

    The weight of new labels

    In India, my identity felt clear and unchallenged. Growing up in a community where cultural and national homogeneity was the norm, I seldom encountered the complexities of navigating diverse cultural spaces.

    As a proud citizen, I had always viewed myself through a singular lens—an educator, a parent, and a lifelong learner.

    Yet, upon arriving in the UK, I gradually found myself assigned new labels: “South Asian,” “brown,” “BAME,” or “non-native English speaker.”

    These descriptors, while often used to acknowledge diversity, and well-intentioned, created a sense of “otherness” I had never felt before.

    They carried with them an uneasy sense of stereotyping relating to cultural norms, economic motivations, or professional capabilities, overshadowing my individuality and the intentionality behind my journey. Or so it seemed to me.

    This was shaped by my specific circumstances. I hadn’t come to the UK fleeing hardship or seeking greener pastures. After over two decades of a successful career, my journey was a deliberate choice to grow and challenge myself within a global academic system.

    Nevertheless, I found myself viewed through a lens that reduced my presence to that of a “brown immigrant” – a categorization laden with assumptions I neither recognized nor accepted as my own.

    Becker’s (1963) labelling theory, as detailed in his seminal work Outsiders, highlights how societal labels can shape individuals’ self-perceptions and interactions. For instance, being termed a “non-native English speaker” undermined my confidence, despite my strong command of the language. I became acutely self-conscious of my speech and writing, scrutinizing every phrase and mannerism.

    Similarly, whilst being classified – for diversity reporting purposes – as “BAME”—a term that homogenized diverse ethnicities—diminished my unique identity as Indian. Condensing the diversity of a vast continent like Asia, and beyond, into a single category overlooked its rich individuality and distinct experiences.

    At 48 years of age, with significant professional and personal capital, this phase felt like a rebirth, requiring me to relearn how to approach daily interactions, meet people, and manage emotions in an unfamiliar environment.

    As a parent, I grappled with the tension between fiercely guarding my child in this new space and allowing her to grow freely as her own person. These dilemmas became an integral part of my journey, shaping my reflections on belonging. However, through these challenges, I discovered that cultural exchange offered a path to understanding identity and belonging.

    Balancing cultures and shared humanity

    One of the most enriching aspects of my time in the UK was finding harmony between embracing new cultures and retaining my distinct and individual, Indian identity. While cultural disconnections were inevitable, moments of connection highlighted opportunity and potential.

    Simple acts, like sharing Ayurvedic home remedies with colleagues or discovering the vegetarian version of haggis and tatties—a Scottish dish that reminded me of flavours from Indian cuisine – sparked conversations, and mutual appreciation and understanding. Such experiences underscored the universality of care and the connections that form through everyday activities or practices.

    Collaborative projects were equally transformative. A group initiative to design an innovative education program with a focus on MOOCs brought together diverse perspectives shaped by educational systems in Uganda, Ghana, Sri Lanka, India, and the United States. Engaging authentically with these cultures helped me realize that my identity wasn’t being erased—it was evolving.

    This drew me to the conclusion that labels no longer seemed like barriers but also served as bridges. Interacting with domestic students further revealed our shared passions for equitable education and learner well-being, reinforcing the commonality of human experiences and aspirations.

    Such moments emphasized that despite our differences, shared humanity forms the foundation of genuine connection and collaboration.

    Celebrating individuality in academic spaces

    Higher education institutions play a crucial role in shaping how identity and belonging are experienced. As an International Postgraduate student, I found value in lectures exploring diverse educational philosophies from thinkers like Confucius, Paulo Freire, bell hooks, Ivan Illich, and Sugata Mitra, alongside predominantly Western curricula.

    These discussions offered a balanced perspective and inclusive learning environment, aligning with culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2010) and ensuring students saw their identities reflected in education. Similarly, initiatives like the University of Edinburgh’s Global Citizenship Initiative and Kingston University’s Inclusive Curriculum Project provide platforms for students to share their unique experiences.

    Labels like “South Asian”, “BAME”, or “Global South” can serve as useful starting points for addressing systemic inequities but risk oversimplifying diverse experiences and perpetuating stereotypes. Institutions should creatively rethink these categorizations to highlight individuality.

    Platforms like self-identification surveys, narrative-sharing workshops, intercultural initiatives, peer-support groups, and reflective writing can foster mutual understanding, empathy, and respect. Staff training in dialogic engagement and curricular reforms can further nurture inclusivity.

    Tinto’s Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (1993) underscores how academic and social integration are pivotal in fostering a sense of belonging, which thrives when institutions celebrate individuality and embrace diversity as a strength.

    Moving beyond labels

    For me, this journey has been one of rediscovery. As I walked across the stage at my graduation ceremony, surrounded by peers from around the world, I felt an overwhelming sense of belonging.

    I realized my journey was not just about academic achievement; it was about embracing a deeper, more inclusive understanding of identity. Engaging authentically with new cultures doesn’t mean losing oneself—even under a label—but rather gaining dimensions to one’s sense of self.

    My reflections are a reminder for myself, and perhaps the broader global society that shared experiences cultivate a true community where individuals feel recognised and valued. Identity evolves, but the need for acceptance and respect as a person remains constant.

    Higher education must create spaces where individuality is honoured, differences are embraced, and restrictive labels are thoughtfully reevaluated. By doing so, institutions can harness the richness of diversity—not only to enrich learning experiences but also to dismantle stereotypes and foster a deeper sense of unity within our global community.

    Source link