Universities UK seeks legal backing over gender segregation guidance

Protesters against gender segregation outside the offices of Universities Uk this month. Photograph: Peter Marshall/Demotix/Corbis

Universities United kingdom has asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission to seek out a legal ruling on its published advice permitting the voluntarily segregation of guys and ladies at campus occasions.

In a statement the organisation, which represents much more than 130 higher education institutions, stated it needed a definitive legal view on the situation in the wake of a debate which saw University UK’s London headquarters targeted by pupil protesters this week.

It said: “Provided the continuing public concern we have nowadays written to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to request that they think about getting the issue clarified by the large court or offer a clear and public statement about the law and the appropriate policy concerns in this area.”

It reiterated that its tips to member institutions on no matter whether it was legally permissible for outside speakers, for example from hardline religious groups, to request audiences be voluntarily split by gender was meant purely as a legal framework. It additional that Universities Uk had because sought an outside legal opinion from the senior barrister Fenella Morris QC, which concluded that the suggestions was “an acceptable foundation for lawful decision-making by universities”.

The controversy started last month when Universities Uk launched a lengthy document for members covering the numerous legal issues around internet hosting external speakers including how to balance the rights to cost-free speech against other considerations.

A single of the illustrative situation studies took the instance of an ultra-orthodox religious group invited to talk as portion of a wider series of talks on faith, in which the speaker has requested the audience be segregated on gender grounds. The advice says that if, for instance, women and males have been seated separately side by side rather than males at the front and females at the back there would not necessarily be any gender inequality, and voluntary segregation could be permitted.

The guidance prompted significant criticism, each from person college students and groups such as Student Rights, which campaigns against extremism on campuses. It published research earlier this 12 months saying that radical preachers spoke at 180 university occasions in the 12 months to March 2013, and that segregation was advertised or implied at much more than a quarter of them.

Earlier this week a group of campaigners staged a protest outside the offices of Universities Uk in Bloomsbury, central London, demanding the organisation rethink its advice.

Universities Uk has insisted that its November document was purely hypothetical advice, and did not in any way advertise or motivate gender segregation.

In its statement the group stated: “It is intended to give practical help to universities in generating decisions about who they pick to invite to talk on campus, steering them through all the distinct considerations, legal and otherwise, that apply. Universities are independent institutions and will make selections themselves on a situation-by-situation basis.”

However, the furore intensified soon after Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of Universities United kingdom, argued on Thursday that segregation on the basis of gender was not fully “alien to our culture”.

Asked by BBC Radio 4′s Nowadays programme about the distinction in between even voluntary gender segregation and doing some thing equivalent on the grounds of race, Dandridge stated: “It is attainable for females to decide on to be educated in an all-women environment. It’s not some thing which is so alien to our culture that it has to be regarded like race segregation, which is totally diverse and it is unlawful and there’s no doubt about that whatsoever.”

However, she stressed that any separation would have to be totally voluntary: “What is quite unpleasant about this argument is you are assuming that we have the appropriate to impose views on participants. If the participants say this is how they want it to be, it is not appropriate for us to disregard their views. If men and women truly feel more comfortably about sitting individually, and which is invariably the situation that will arise in these situations, then universities have to listen to those views.

“We are not speaking about educating, lectures, the core company of universities. This certain case research is extremely certain: it’s talking about an occasion to examine faith in the present day world in the course of a series of lectures about various approaches to religion.”

She stated that this kind of separation was allowed only if it did not cause disadvantage: “What the law says is that segregation on the grounds of gender might or might not be a disadvantage. What this situation research is exploring is when it could be a disadvantage and in which it may not be. In conditions the place the audience is saying that they desire to sit in distinct groups then we are saying that universities should respect their views delivering – and this is critical – supplying that there is no disadvantage to either males or women.”

Chuka Umunna, the shadow organization secretary, whose quick will take in larger schooling, told Nowadays he was “horrified by what I heard … allow me be definitely clear, a future Labour government would not allow or tolerate segregation in our universities.

“It offends standard norms in our society. Of course people should be free of charge to practise their religion privately in spots of worship and at religious events. But universities are publicly funded spots of investigation, understanding and educating and, as this kind of, there is no area in my see for state-sponsored segregation.”

Universities UK seeks legal backing over gender segregation guidance

Gender segregation not "alien to our culture", says Universities UK chief

Nicola Dandridge said: ‘If people feel more comfortably about sitting separately, and that’s invariably the situation that will arise in these cases, then universities have to listen to those views.’ Photograph: Geoff Wilson

Gender segregation is not completely “alien to our culture”, the leader of a universities organisation said as she defended controversial guidance on the voluntary separation of men and women at events on campus.

Nicola Dandridge, the chief executive of Universities UK, insisted that institutions would not enforce segregation but if participants were happy to sit in separate groups that would be permitted as long as there was no disadvantage.

The row over segregation has sparked protests from students, and the shadow business secretary, Chuka Umunna, said he was “horrified” by Universities UK’s position.

Last month a Universities UK report presented some hypothetical case studies that come up on campuses, including whether a speaker from an ultra-orthodox religious group requests an audience is segregated by gender.

The report states that university officials must consider both freedom of speech obligations and discrimination and equality laws when considering such a request.

It says that if officials decide to proceed with an event with segregation, they must consider whether a seating plan would be discriminatory to one gender.

For instance if women were forced to sit at the back of the room it could prove harder for them to participate in the debate and could be discriminatory for the female attendees.

But it goes on to say that if side-by-side seating were enforced without offering an alternative non-segregated seating area, it could be deemed as discriminatory against men or women who hold feminist beliefs.

Dandridge told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme: “We are not talking about universities enforcing segregation. One of the questions that runs through our case study which illustrates this questions is: ‘Is this segregation voluntary, have the people who are likely to come to this event agreed to the segregation?’

“That is something that would be fundamentally important to the university in making a decision. In practice if the people coming to this event said: ‘We do not want to segregate and separate out men and women’ it is inconceivable that the university would impose it on them.

“What we are talking about in practice is voluntary segregation and that’s what happens in practice if people participating choose.”

Rejecting comparisons to racial segregation, she said: “It is possible for women to choose to be educated in an all-women environment. It’s not something which is so alien to our culture that it has to be regarded like race segregation, which is totally different and it’s unlawful and there’s no doubt about that whatsoever.”

She said that a university would prevent an event going ahead if there was pressure being put on women to sit in certain places.

Dandridge added: “What is very uncomfortable about this argument is you are assuming that we have the right to impose views on participants. If the participants say this is how they want it to be, it is not appropriate for us to disregard their views.

“If people feel more comfortably about sitting separately, and that’s invariably the situation that will arise in these cases, then universities have to listen to those views.

“We are not talking about teaching, lectures, the core business of universities. This particular case study is very specific: it’s talking about an event to discuss faith in the modern world in the course of a series of lectures about different approaches to religion.”

She said she was happy to publish legal advice and added: “What the law says is that segregation on the grounds of gender may or may not be a disadvantage. What this case study is exploring is when it may be a disadvantage and where it may not be.

“In circumstances where the audience is saying that they prefer to sit in different groups then we are saying that universities should respect their views providing – and this is critical – providing that there is no disadvantage to either men or women.”

“This is about ensuring that everyone has the right to sit where they want, including those who wish to sit in separate areas. That element of voluntary choice is really critical, it’s not a question of imposing views on students here.”

Umunna told Today a future Labour government would outlaw segregation on campus.

He said: “I was horrified by what I heard … let me be absolutely clear, a future Labour government would not allow or tolerate segregation in our universities.

“It offends basic norms in our society. Of course people should be free to practise their religion privately in places of worship and at religious events.

“But universities are publicly funded places of research, learning and teaching and, as such, there is no place in my view for state-sponsored segregation.”

Gender segregation not "alien to our culture", says Universities UK chief

Reinforcing gender stereotypes: how our schools narrow children"s choices | Athene Donald

Are specific subjects no-go places for women, or boys? A report suggests the vast majority of colleges fail to inspire topic alternatives in a gender-neutral way

Kids understand sexism at college. So says the headline of a piece in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago, in response to a shocking report on the experiences of more than a thousand Lady Guides. Principal school youngsters who truly feel they have to diet program in purchase to conform to airbrushed images in the media, secondary school children who are “touched up” in ways that make them truly feel uncomfortable – this appears to be the fate of the younger women in our population. A single may possibly, without a doubt must, question why schools are undertaking so tiny to counter these kinds of attitudes and actions.

Seeking at how colleges tackle the a lot more formal aspects of schooling it is clear that right here also sexism is prevalent. The report launched right now by the Institute of Physics (IOP) entitled “Closing Doors” demonstrates that the vast majority of schools fail to motivate subject selections in a gender neutral way. Boys are less likely to consider stereotypically girls’ subjects such as psychology or English, whereas women are opting not to get physics or economics A-level, stereotypically identified as “for boys”. This is not excellent information. Our young children need to be cost-free to pick to examine what truly excites them, not subtly steered away from certain topics due to the fact teachers feel in and propagate the stereotypes. Final 12 months the IOP published a report “It really is Distinct for Ladies” which demonstrated that in essence half of state coeducational schools did not see a single lady progress to A-degree physics. By contrast, the probability of ladies progressing from single intercourse schools had been two and a half occasions better.

When discussing the launch of this report on the BBC Today programme I was challenged by a headteacher that “possibly girls just do not like physics”. She appeared not to grasp the reality that this fantastic big difference amongst single-sex and mixed schools was likely to indicate that some thing basic in the school ethos, coupled with the way teachers dealt with classes and expectations, was contributing to the problem rather than this simply currently being a case of women “not liking” the subject. She had missed the complete point of the report and was stuck with her very own preconceptions.

Today’s adhere to-up report from the IOP reinforces the truth that colleges tend to educate in ways that conform to gender stereotypes, hindering the two boys and ladies from fulfilling their full potential. I as soon as was advised by an English instructor straight out that “boys can not do English”, therefore apparently consigning 50% of the population to the dustbin of literary endeavour. With attitudes like this, it is not surprising that virtually three quarters of the A-level English cohort more than the past three many years were ladies. Conversely, given that in accordance to that headteacher “maybe girls just don’t like physics”, we shouldn’t be astonished that only 20% of the A-level physics cohort are ladies. Teachers’ expectations matter. Headteachers’ expectations matter. If, even unconsciously, they hold these tenets to be accurate, we are unlikely ever to see A-level lessons that are near to 50:50 in their composition.

Employing information from the Nationwide Pupil database, which collects info from every college and on every single little one, the report demonstrates that there are schools that buck the trend. Analysing information from 6 A-level subjects (with maths, economics and physics identified with boys and biology, psychology and English identified with the ladies), A-degree numbers for boys and girls have been compared with the all round national averages. The schools that buck the trend are therefore individuals that have more substantial numbers of boys or women progressing to A-ranges in the subjects that are stereotypically related with the opposite intercourse. Out of two,465 coeducational state colleges studied, only a mere 462 (that’s less than 20%) match this class of in fact countering the stereotyping. On the other hand, around half the schools have worse statistics than regular, indicating they are reinforcing stereotypical alternatives even over the nationwide averages, the remainder basically currently being far more or less average. (If you are puzzled by the numbers, keep in mind schools differ in dimension: read through the total report for even more information.)

As with the previous IOP report talked about above, there is another group of schools that can be in contrast with these state colleges. If independent (ie non-state-maintained and fee-paying out) colleges are examined, it is discovered that this group of 343 colleges split practically specifically equally into those that effectively fight the stereotyping, those that are neutral and people that reinforce it. Of course this comparison is not ideal. The independent colleges will be taking wealthier young children on typical, and messages obtained at property will also be enjoying a portion in each and every child’s options. Nevertheless it indicates that messages are appropriate, not just something innate in a child’s chromosomes.

Absolutely we can do better? We must be ready to construct school finding out environments whereby teachers do not give out messages, subliminal or otherwise, that there are subjects that aren’t for ladies – or equally that are not for boys. As a society we must be demanding that inspections by the regulatory entire body Ofsted contain consideration of inherent sexism in the classroom and gendered messages currently being given out by teachers. College governors and mothers and fathers as well need to be clamouring to see eradication of this kind of messages, insisting that schools give data and monitor the A-level choices of boys and ladies from their schools. Even primary colleges ought to be checking how they portray different topics, because typically preferences are set quite early in a child’s life.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, with tough evidence to verify what numerous have long suspected, we should make positive our nationwide training technique does not allow these imbalances to continue. We can’t afford to deter the greatest from pursuing their dreams, irrespective of gender, whatever these dreams may possibly be.

• Athene Donald is a professor of physics at the University of Cambridge. She tweets at @athenedonald

Reinforcing gender stereotypes: how our schools narrow children"s choices | Athene Donald