AIBU - "white, straight, able-bodied man? You cannot attend" - it's finally happened!

[enterYourPassword]

Story here

A lecturers’ union is refusing to let its officers take part in debates at an equality summit if they are white, straight, able-bodied men.

The equality conference of the University and College Union said that members must declare their ‘protected characteristic’ – whether they are gay, disabled, female or from an ethnic minority – when applying to attend.

Activists say that it means representatives who do not qualify cannot participate in all of the discussions – even though they have been elected by their union branch.

AIBU in thinking that this is exactly the opposite of what is supposed to be being achieved? It reminds me of that horrible excuse for a human Bahar Mustafa.

A Union refusing to let any officers take part (despite their jobs being working in equality) unless they have a "protected characteristic" makes no sense to me. A simplistic arguement to say that if the roles were reversed there would be an outcry but surely it should swing both ways.

It's patronising in the extreme to suggest the professionals have nothing to contribute unless they are part of a 'minority'. I've posted as my SIL (white, straight, middle class) is involved in this insomuch as she was invited to attend or perhaps invited to apply to attend (immaterial).

I personally think this is wrong. Any form of discrimination is bad and can have no positive outcome and no less so when enacted by what were a traditionally struggling minority - although they now seem to be a flourishing and powerful political force with extremely misguided attempts to create 'safe spaces' becoming the very thing they purport to be against.

Tbf a lot of unions like a cause and isssues splinter groups can cause division and that cause inequality

It's a non-issue. It's just limiting the breakout groups.

White, straight, able-bodied men are the most privileged group in society. I don't see an issue with limiting their input in specific breakout groups.

Presumably these groups are running concurrently? So I was a white able bodied man elected to represent a group containing BME lesbians then I'd have to miss one of the groups anyway?

I absolutely agree with the fact that these are elected professionals. It isn't about stopping skinheads attending a discussion about race and not allowing them seems like positive discrimination. If it isn't how isn't it?

"If you are not part of the group you will have nothing to contribute to the discussion and frankly your presence might inhibit full and frank disclosure."

Yes theRugby, you've summed up the whole sorry and backwards attitude of the organisers.

"OP as a white, able bodied woman, what could you possibly contribute to a discussion for black, gay men?"

If I were black then would I be able to contribute or do you need all 'characteristics ie. male too? How about a black gay woman? Just a man but straight and white? If I were Asian would I be allowed because similarly to a black woman, we aren't white.

If it were my area of expertise and as an intelligent person, why possibly couldn't I contribute? I could as an employer of 2 gay black men perhaps or having seen the issues my gay black son has had. It doesn't need to be first hand experience to be worthwhile.

To be an equality representative do you have to fit into every minority or can a white straight woman be as good an advocate as someone else?

Not exactly applicable here but there are some people who need advocates as they can't for themselves. I'd be a fucking good advocate (yes, I know what I'm good at) despite having every privilege going.

FuzzyWizard

What about all of the gay people who elected a disabled rep or disabled people who elected a black rep? What about their voices.

Exactly! Need the gay community (for example) have a gay representative in order to have their voices heard at such meetings?

Presumably, these reps weren't elected specifically to represent one particular group (e.g. people with disabilities or women). So which breakout session would they attend?

And if one particular branch elected, say, a gay man, and he went to the LGBT breakout session, who would represent the women/BME/disabled members of his branch at their respective breakout sessions? Nobody, I assume.

The breakout sessions don't need representation from each branch imo, because the purpose of them is to provide a forum for people who are directly affected by particular issues to discuss those issues.

All elected reps are welcome at the main conference. Don't really see what the issue is tbh. Seems to me that people are just looking for a reason to feel outraged.

So what they are saying is no one who isn't in a particular group can have meaningful input? Or God forbid learn anything from it?

as a white, able bodied woman, what could you possibly contribute to a discussion for black, gay men

Well Rugby you're surely never going to find out with that attitude.

I agree, it's a non-issue.

There are situations in which it's good to talk in smaller groups. I don't see, from either article, why people couldn't organise multiple different breakout groups, so surely you would often find overlapping groups of people who were sometimes talking together and sometimes separately.

It's pretty obvious that you will have a different type of conversation between, say, five people with the exact same focus, and 15 with variations on a theme. That's not a bad thing.

Surely it's arrogant to assume that someone who is 'passionate' about equality has exactly the same experience, qualifications and insight as someone who has lived with an issue?

Are the breakout sessions actually for the benefit of those the reps are representing or the reps themselves though? I've been to conferences about service users that then had side groups about things affecting us and not the service users we were 'there for' as personal/professional support, so it may be relevant what minority the rep is from and have nothing to do with those that elected them. Depends what the aim of the breakout sessions is.

Privileged people really hate " safe spaces " , don't they ?

Are the breakout sessions actually for the benefit of those the reps are representing or the reps themselves though?

For the reps themselves, I would guess. Very common at conferences to have some sessions like that.

Perhaps the solution would be for the conference to add an additional breakout session for straight white men to talk about the challenges of being equality reps when they have no direct experience of discrimination themselves...

Privileged people really hate " safe spaces " , don't they ?

Many people simply hate the abuse of the idea safe spaces. Using 'equality' as a stick with which to beat people, disregrading all equality laws as and when, making separatist issues out of everything!

Didn't Goldsmiths SU do the same a few months back? It's going to get worse before it gets better.

Pretty much all conferences have breakouts that only apply to certain sections, the notes are circulated for all to read later. I can't get too het up about this.

Kr1stina

"Privileged people really hate " safe spaces " , don't they ?"

I hate what they represent, yes. Idiots are against inequality but equally, idiots believe they are unique and special and deserve treatment inline with their "struggle".

Will you be able to take part in the women's section if you have a penis but wear a dress?

And would you have male privilege to then take part in also the LGBT section?

And perhaps also again if you have some kind of disability?

Or do you have to pick your poison, so to speak?

no direct experience of discrimination themselves Unless they are trying to get an intern job at the BBC.

If I was an equality rep. and a (say) blind colleague asks for help what am I supposed to say "I can't really help because the union wouldn't let me find out about your problems".

Why can't a deaf black equality rep go to a meeting about gay equality. Perhaps he has a gay person in his workplace who he thinks might be being discriminated against. Would it not benefit him and more importantly has "constituent" to learn about that kind of discrimination.

Breakout groups tend to have two purposes, some people explain the problems, some people propose solutions. Having heterogeneous groups in a breakout session is useless.

This has always been so. I was a union rep 25 years ago and these kind of groups have always existed, it's nowt new.

I don't think our straight white male union rep would have a problem with this at all. It's break-out spaces, not the whole conference, and it has a very clear rationale.

The only trouble for me is that a straight white male could access those safe spaces if he says he's a woman.

Seems odd that a w,s,ab,m is elected to represent those who are not.

Bloody hell... yet more of that stupid 'safe space' shite.

Yes, what is all this safe space bollocks?

It all sounds as if people are being a bit 'precious'.

CDTaylor - If I was an equality rep. and a (say) blind colleague asks for help what am I supposed to say "I can't really help because the union wouldn't let me find out about your problems"
But the union wouldn't be barring you from finding out, or having the right information to give advice - just not inviting you to a particular small session where blind people talk to one another about being blind.

Actually, point of law here:
everyone has a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

Race - each individual belongs to a race, has a certain colour, ethnicity or nationality.
Age
Sex
Sexual orientation - whether gay, straight, bi or whatever.
Religion or belief - this is wide and could be atheist, vegetarian or political if it's strongly held and practised.

The Equality Act does not discriminate. It protects everyone from suffering less favourable treatment on the grounds of a protected characteristic. Even carers of disabled people, people harassed for being gay when they are straight, and the old, young and middle aged!

people harassed for being gay when they are straight

But surely that's a contingent situation where the person is harassed because it's thought that they have a protected characteristic, but they actually don't?

So any attendees not being allowed to participate because they are white, straight, etc can claim discrimination. There are some circumstances where the law allows discrimination to be justified though.