Tweet
I think my university is breaking the law
Hello all,
So a few weeks ago the department had an email circulated advertising PhD fellowships at Google. The issue is, the email contained this line...
"We've just been made aware of this opportunity for the University to nominate up to 3 students to the Google PhD Fellowship Program. If more than two are nominated, then in order to increase opportunities for students who are underrepresented in the field of computing, the additional nominee must self-identify as a woman"
I emailed the director of postgraduate studies to highlight that I'm pretty sure this is against the law. I researched discrimination based on sex and found that there are 'positive action' allowances which appear to basically allow an employer to give extra encouragement and even training to people of an underrepresented group, in order to make them eligible for a job. It does not allow the employer to simply withhold a job for people of a protected characteristic.
I was kind of 'shot down', with a link (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents/enacted) to a more thorough list of the rules, and he basically relied on this comment referring to the legal 'positive action'. The relevant rules as shared by him were (there are only a couple more on the site):
“Positive action: recruitment and promotion
(1)This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that—
(a)persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, or
(b)participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.
(2)Part 5 (work) does not prohibit P from taking action within subsection (3) with the aim of enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to—
(a)overcome or minimise that disadvantage, or
(b)participate in that activity.
(3)That action is treating a person (A) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than another person (B) because A has the protected characteristic but B does not.
(4)But subsection (2) applies only if—
(a)A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted,
(b)P does not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than persons who do not share it, and
(c)taking the action in question is a proportionate means of achieving the aim referred to in subsection (2).”
At first I thought fair enough, I am wrong. BUT after careful reading I still believe these rules actually back me up, not them.
Part 2 talks about overcoming disadvantages, but, these are females who are coming to the end of a physics/engineering/computer science degree or are already graduated with a masters. I do not understand how the university could claim there is a 'disadvantage' that females have in applying for this job, that they'd need help in overcoming. They are already in the STEM field, at masters level. Any 'disadvantages' have surely already been overcome and they've proven their sex has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to do the job. And there is no disadvantage in participating, we all got the email, we all can apply if we want.
Part 4 then, this is the main crux of the argument. 4b, Subsection 2 applies only if the employer does not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably...
So this is saying that if an employer already has a policy in place to treat protected people favourably (which I'm pretty sure is explicitly against the law), then these 'rules of positive action' don't apply anymore.
Therefore, the university is initiating a policy which outright holds a job for females always, regardless of merit, how many people apply etc. So, the instance where positive action is permissible, (ie, 2 people apply for a role and are both equally as qualified and capable, the employer is allowed to choose the person who fits whatever characterisation they feel is underrepresented) will never happen. But this does rely on the fact both people have had the opportunity to apply, be considered and are equally qualified. What the university are doing is removing the opportunity for males to even apply.
So I believe the university are breaking the law and would like some backup/ someone to explain why I'm wrong in this.
Thanks a lot!
So a few weeks ago the department had an email circulated advertising PhD fellowships at Google. The issue is, the email contained this line...
"We've just been made aware of this opportunity for the University to nominate up to 3 students to the Google PhD Fellowship Program. If more than two are nominated, then in order to increase opportunities for students who are underrepresented in the field of computing, the additional nominee must self-identify as a woman"
I emailed the director of postgraduate studies to highlight that I'm pretty sure this is against the law. I researched discrimination based on sex and found that there are 'positive action' allowances which appear to basically allow an employer to give extra encouragement and even training to people of an underrepresented group, in order to make them eligible for a job. It does not allow the employer to simply withhold a job for people of a protected characteristic.
I was kind of 'shot down', with a link (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents/enacted) to a more thorough list of the rules, and he basically relied on this comment referring to the legal 'positive action'. The relevant rules as shared by him were (there are only a couple more on the site):
“Positive action: recruitment and promotion
(1)This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that—
(a)persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, or
(b)participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.
(2)Part 5 (work) does not prohibit P from taking action within subsection (3) with the aim of enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to—
(a)overcome or minimise that disadvantage, or
(b)participate in that activity.
(3)That action is treating a person (A) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than another person (B) because A has the protected characteristic but B does not.
(4)But subsection (2) applies only if—
(a)A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted,
(b)P does not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than persons who do not share it, and
(c)taking the action in question is a proportionate means of achieving the aim referred to in subsection (2).”
At first I thought fair enough, I am wrong. BUT after careful reading I still believe these rules actually back me up, not them.
Part 2 talks about overcoming disadvantages, but, these are females who are coming to the end of a physics/engineering/computer science degree or are already graduated with a masters. I do not understand how the university could claim there is a 'disadvantage' that females have in applying for this job, that they'd need help in overcoming. They are already in the STEM field, at masters level. Any 'disadvantages' have surely already been overcome and they've proven their sex has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to do the job. And there is no disadvantage in participating, we all got the email, we all can apply if we want.
Part 4 then, this is the main crux of the argument. 4b, Subsection 2 applies only if the employer does not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably...
So this is saying that if an employer already has a policy in place to treat protected people favourably (which I'm pretty sure is explicitly against the law), then these 'rules of positive action' don't apply anymore.
Therefore, the university is initiating a policy which outright holds a job for females always, regardless of merit, how many people apply etc. So, the instance where positive action is permissible, (ie, 2 people apply for a role and are both equally as qualified and capable, the employer is allowed to choose the person who fits whatever characterisation they feel is underrepresented) will never happen. But this does rely on the fact both people have had the opportunity to apply, be considered and are equally qualified. What the university are doing is removing the opportunity for males to even apply.
So I believe the university are breaking the law and would like some backup/ someone to explain why I'm wrong in this.
Thanks a lot!