Tweet
Hi there, I had written on this previously but unfortunately didn't receive any advice.
I am taking my employer to a tribunal and trying to do so on the basis of Discrimination and Harassment.
One of my complaints relates to a 'Lived Experience' research paper which was commissioned by my employer and carried out by university researchers. Reading the report, it is clear that the 'theoretical frameworks' used by the reporters to interpret their findings was a highly ideological and massively skewed theoretical framework. They interpreted the findings using Raewyn Connells theory of 'Hegemonic Masculinity' (a derivative of Antonio Gramsci's Marxist theory of Cultural Hegemony). Connell him/herself was a leading member of the radical political movement of the 60s and 70s led by Herbert Marcuse, known as the New Left.
So, off the bat, the researchers are clearly partisan and any findings that they made were going to reflect the massively partisan theoretical models they relied upon. In other words, the findings were a fait accompli.
Furthermore, the standard of evidence used in this research was 'Lived Experience', which is to say anecdotal evidence.
Furthermore, 7 of the reports findings contained the same footnote which explained that 'Whilst specific supporting research evidence was not found by the research team, this finding was considered by Organisaton to be generally known and understood by Organisation'.
The main finding around which all other 'findings' act as support beams declares that: 'A white male prototype is pervasive and undermines inclusion'
The report recommends 'changing the culture'.
Issues I have with this report.
The clear fraud of having the commissioners of research dictate to the research team which findings to include in their report despite lack of evidence, as evidenced by the footnote.
The fact that the theoretical models employed by the researchers were obviously ideological in nature and meant the report was going to be massively biased and arguing from conclusions from the beginning.
Giving anecdotal evidence undue weight and using it as a justification for enacting policy changes which will prove to be discriminatory ie 'changing the culture' means getting rid of the pervasive white male.
Referring to a 'white male prototype' being dehumanising to an entire group who share a protected characteristic. I especially take exception to use of the word prototype as it implies that there is nothing an individual can do to escape being tarred with the brush. It's part of their prototype, in other word it's like a genetic defect or something formulated in the womb.
Saying that this prototype is 'pervasive' makes it sound like they're dealing with vermin rather than human beings. Like they have a pest control problem.
Accusing an entire protected group of 'undermining inclusion'
I consider publishing work like this to be an act of direct discrimination and/or of harassment. Harassment especially because it absolutely has the purpose AND effect of violating my dignity and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for me as a member of that group.
My question is that the respondents lawyers are saying I can't bring such claims because they are not aimed at me directly/personally as it has to be about how I am PERSONALLY treated.
Now, I think that's an overly literal interpretation of the equality act. I think they are trying to stick to the letter of the law and not the spirit.
Does anyone have any opinion they could give? I'm going to argue that use of the word 'person' in the legislation shouldn't be treated so restrictively as Person A in the Equality Act doesn't mean an individual necessarily but can represent an entire corporate body. Similarly, then, you should be able to interpret Person B as being representative of the entire Protected group and thus permit an individual to bring a claim as an individual member of that group when that whole group is targeted.
It simply cannot be the case that an employer can be as racist or as bigoted as they like towards a protected characteristic group so long as they don't aim it towards any particular individual within that group.
I'd welcome your thoughts.
I am taking my employer to a tribunal and trying to do so on the basis of Discrimination and Harassment.
One of my complaints relates to a 'Lived Experience' research paper which was commissioned by my employer and carried out by university researchers. Reading the report, it is clear that the 'theoretical frameworks' used by the reporters to interpret their findings was a highly ideological and massively skewed theoretical framework. They interpreted the findings using Raewyn Connells theory of 'Hegemonic Masculinity' (a derivative of Antonio Gramsci's Marxist theory of Cultural Hegemony). Connell him/herself was a leading member of the radical political movement of the 60s and 70s led by Herbert Marcuse, known as the New Left.
So, off the bat, the researchers are clearly partisan and any findings that they made were going to reflect the massively partisan theoretical models they relied upon. In other words, the findings were a fait accompli.
Furthermore, the standard of evidence used in this research was 'Lived Experience', which is to say anecdotal evidence.
Furthermore, 7 of the reports findings contained the same footnote which explained that 'Whilst specific supporting research evidence was not found by the research team, this finding was considered by Organisaton to be generally known and understood by Organisation'.
The main finding around which all other 'findings' act as support beams declares that: 'A white male prototype is pervasive and undermines inclusion'
The report recommends 'changing the culture'.
Issues I have with this report.
The clear fraud of having the commissioners of research dictate to the research team which findings to include in their report despite lack of evidence, as evidenced by the footnote.
The fact that the theoretical models employed by the researchers were obviously ideological in nature and meant the report was going to be massively biased and arguing from conclusions from the beginning.
Giving anecdotal evidence undue weight and using it as a justification for enacting policy changes which will prove to be discriminatory ie 'changing the culture' means getting rid of the pervasive white male.
Referring to a 'white male prototype' being dehumanising to an entire group who share a protected characteristic. I especially take exception to use of the word prototype as it implies that there is nothing an individual can do to escape being tarred with the brush. It's part of their prototype, in other word it's like a genetic defect or something formulated in the womb.
Saying that this prototype is 'pervasive' makes it sound like they're dealing with vermin rather than human beings. Like they have a pest control problem.
Accusing an entire protected group of 'undermining inclusion'
I consider publishing work like this to be an act of direct discrimination and/or of harassment. Harassment especially because it absolutely has the purpose AND effect of violating my dignity and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for me as a member of that group.
My question is that the respondents lawyers are saying I can't bring such claims because they are not aimed at me directly/personally as it has to be about how I am PERSONALLY treated.
Now, I think that's an overly literal interpretation of the equality act. I think they are trying to stick to the letter of the law and not the spirit.
Does anyone have any opinion they could give? I'm going to argue that use of the word 'person' in the legislation shouldn't be treated so restrictively as Person A in the Equality Act doesn't mean an individual necessarily but can represent an entire corporate body. Similarly, then, you should be able to interpret Person B as being representative of the entire Protected group and thus permit an individual to bring a claim as an individual member of that group when that whole group is targeted.
It simply cannot be the case that an employer can be as racist or as bigoted as they like towards a protected characteristic group so long as they don't aim it towards any particular individual within that group.
I'd welcome your thoughts.
Comment