child-producing breast-feeding legal thing

[IceBeing]

I have promotion criteria that involve 'international reputation' which is often rated by the number of international conferences one has attended. I have attended none in the last 3 years due to pregnancy and then breast feeding.

Is there any legal argument to be made that this is discriminatory?

I'm not talking about advance planning. I had plenty of advance planning in place, and then had placenta previa, EMCS, and all that went out of the window. I think what I was talking about was ongoing planning, i.e. during the 2 years in place. But I was assuming that you have annual Departmental reviews of your research plan with a Departmental mentor, HoD and possibly the Director of Research present? For me, this would be a good time to bring up what I had been doing, what not, and what my plans were and how I was working towards promotion.

But I am in an exceptionally supportive Department where a lot of the MEN do the bulk of the childcare because their wives have high powered less flexible jobs. Just a coincidence. It does show that it needs MEN to be inconvenienced for the system to work fairly for women. We are all asked for our childcare rotas when the Departmental teaching schedule is made, but if I remember correctly this is because the HoD at one point had 2 kids, a lawyer wife and did all the pick ups and drop offs himself and it then became Department practice. I am willing to bet if this HoD had been a female, with a male lawyer husband and had requested the same dispensation many eyebrows would have been raised.

The CV handing out thing happens in my Department as well.

Right, on the question comparison. I guess there is comparison because the pot of money is limited. Every promotion from Lecturer to SL or SL to Reader etc costs the Department/University money. So Departments that are bottom heavy (i.e. with lots of Lecturers) will often be financially better off. So when an entire round of Lecturers come up for SL, I am assuming that whether it is legal/unfair or not, there is a degree of comparison?

Have you got a union? This is a Union matter really, if not, get a few like-minded women together and see a solicitor. You will get legal aid for a discrimination case.

Things are certainly becoming clearer. I am tempted to say at last . And can I suggest you talk this through with a trusted friend or colleague before raising elsewhere, because if a MN audience that is inherently likely to be sympathetic to your cause got confused and abreacted due to misunderstandings, then you'll have to work all the harder on the messaging for the people you truly need to convince.

From my perspective, I think the nub of your discussions with colleagues to improve the process must revolve around the following: "There is nothing wrong with candidate A passing the bar because they got invited to 6 conferences last year. There is a massive problem with candidate B failing to pass the bar because (in spite of having the expected level of international reputation) they have been unable to attend conferences for whatever reason be it BF, illness or caring responsibilities."

In your shoes, I personally would be minded to solve the problem from a technical point of view by having the Dept set out some alternative methods by which a candidate who is unable to travel can nonetheless demonstrate their international reputation.

But that can only happen once the underlying issues have been addressed. These probably revolve around mindsets (e.g., "never mind the quality, feel the width"; or "we all know that the only thing that matters is hobnobbing with international colleagues, because that's what mattered when I was making my reputation" or possibly "look, if a woman can't sort herself out to get to an international conference, it's her own look out and I don't think she should be promoted" etc etc) or incentives ("I don't want to get stuck in this sodding promotions meeting with my 49 windy colleagues forever, so let's just use the number of conferences as a proxy, because it's much quicker" or "we can't afford to promote everyone even if we're supposed to, so we need some method of winnowing out the list, and this will do", etc etc). Somehow, these underlying issues need teasing out, and then people need to be persuaded to shift mindsets and behaviours, and then they themselves will look for the right solutions.

This is a non-legal approach but it is one I have seen work very effectively elsewhere in analogous situations. It is not easy, though.

boss I am glad you can see the funny side! - I have genuinely been an arse. I suppose it is possible that I may win a prize for most obvious climb down/backpeddling thread ever!

I wish I could claim it was a one off....

home very much at last....

I agree that it needs to be far far clearer what the actual point is....

I think my problem is that I have these conversations so often that I tend to skip bits by the 10th time.

So the point is:

We have a promotion process that involves sending CVs around everyone at a higher rank than the candidate.

This means that if there are potentially sensitive factors that should (in a fair process) be considered, they either have to be left out (potentially harming the candidates chances) or made public to essentially the whole department.

It is also a breeding ground for unconscious bias, as only a tiny minority of those present are DE aware...and they do not seem to speak up about it. (eg. when two people pushed for a double promotion the man was audacious and go getting but the woman was a pushy arrogant so and so with ideas above her station)

It is also a breeding ground for candidate - candidate comparisons which are a bad thing as there is genuinely no need to rank or compare and the HR policies very specifically say that there are no quotas and no comparisons should be made. This is a further discrimination issue because comparisons tend to lead to numerics being used and the idea of quantity over quality which in itself is know to disadvantage women more than men.

The example that backs this all up is that at the last meeting international reputation was judged by number of conferences attended - a specifically infamous metric for biasing against women.

We should solve these problems because it is the right thing to do for EVERYONE. We should also do it because sooner or later our process is going to indirectly discriminate against someone with a protected characteristic and we will all be in serious trouble.

You haven't been arse, you are allowed to over-think, complicate and tactically under-inform this because you are an academic. It's part of your job.

But you should see a solicitor - this kind of ingrained inequality precisely what the European Court of Human Rights is for. And an essential battle for all women. I will be disappointed if you don't attack this with all your available for the injustice that it is.

And if you are all academics it's perfect because they will all LOVE to go over it thoroughly and have endless meetings and discussions. If they are true academics they will enjoy this process and give your solicitor all the evidence they need and more. Just get a solicitor with a lot of patience.

*available energy and resources

horse, that post comes across as quite barbed . Academics are not a breed with unifying features. Nor do they all tactically under-inform. Whatever issue, you have got with some academics, please leave it away from here.

random comma in there, sorry

yikes!

The echr would not be the right court. It would go to an employment tribunal, and only if they got it wrong in law would it go up and up.... And a solicitor would only take such a case if they could see who was funding it. My dh can't afford my fees, well unless I pay for them.... Which is another issue and another debate. He's far cleverer and more qualified than me, but is paid so very little so he can't progress his career with international conferences etc unless my job is flexible, as it's my job that pays the bills and for the childcare we do use. So you don't want him in your comparisons.

That CV passing round thing sounds hideous. Someone seeing my CV feels a bit like me to someone seeing a picture of me in a bikini - not exactly anything that you would specifically complain about, but personal enough to make me feel uncomfortable.

Muchado you get legal aid for discrimination. OP I am not barbed, believe me, sorry if I'm scaring you but you seem to be slightly minimising this.

It is discrimination at its finest. No I'm not a legal person, or an academic, nor do I have an issue with academics but I do think that of all the sectors this one ought to be free from discrimination.

If you don't take this further you would be letting yourself and womankind (no pressure) down.

Legal aid.... No you don't. Not for an employment claim. Not these days there is no legal aid for almost anything. Much better off with either insurance to back you, or a union. Legal aid is very very difficult to get and employment lawyers as a whole don't touch it. And certainly not if you are on even a poor academic salary as however bad they are they won't give legal aid unless you are very very poor.

www.gov.uk/legal-aid

This is why I suggested taking a group action. It might be possible to go another route, insurance or union (as I previously also suggested) but whichever route you take it will help if you have other women alongside you making this claim. You never know you might even win and get compensation.

Okay I feel I should restate that I have not been discriminated against and have not in fact been through the process. This is about constructing and argument legal or otherwise that the process should be changed before we all end up in court rather than after.

Having said that, I do believe others have been knocked back inappropriately in various hard to prove ways....but this is primarily about fixing things for the future.

It is institutional discrimination. All women are being discriminated against potentially.

It's why we have a human rights Act and the EC of HR. It is so important that you get legal aid for it despite the cuts.

Perhaps you have to decide in your own mind whether or not you see it as a minor inconvenience and something that can be dealt with alone or something you want to fight for as a principle. It's easy for me to encourage you to fight the fight, I am on the sidelines - far harder for you of course, I understand that. I think I am just a little surprised that you are seeing it as a personal matter.

I realise it could put your career on the line but if others have also had a similar problem you might be able to put together a good case.

And as I said before, it's not as though you are trying to change the banking system, you are dealing with like-minded academics, people who actually think things through rather than think of profit. They would probably be horrified that their institution might be discriminating against anyone. As soon as you present this to them they will probably bend over backward to change the system.

I would worry that if you do it alone you risk sticking your neck out too far and they will find a way to exclude you further. What do you think their reaction would be if you proposed a different system without going through a legal route?

horse yes I do see what you mean. I have no intention of letting the current situation continue. I hope that court action will not be necessary in getting things turned around. It may be that even the threat of court action isn't necessary but if it is then I will do it!

Attagirl!

But tread carefully. :) Good luck.

I'm sorry but I think that anything legal is the wrong course of action here. Discrimination only works if you are persoanlly put at a disadvantage (because it would be indirect). You say you have not been discriminated against. If so there is not legal route to bring a claim. Maybe the equality commission would look at it, but if they don't this had the potential to trun into a very expensive issue which is a battle. I can't think of a solicitor I know who would touch it however interesting it might be, or however right it might be, without lots of funds. Solicitors as a whole do not act because something is right, and most solicitors don't act because of the principle of the matter. It's an old adage but there are 3 cases which they are wary of. Thos of principle, those of justice and those about boundary disputes.

As such if you want to get this changed, forget the law, but engage in the argument, why it is unfair and how that could be addressed for the benefit of everyone. You are clearly bright so argue your case because it is right, not because the current system might be unlawful because it just as easily might not be.

Silverlining - Discrimination only works if you are persoanlly put at a disadvantage (because it would be indirect)

OP has been put at a personal disadvantage. She says she hasn't but her post shows in great detail that there are systems set up within her organisations which mean a whole section of society are excluded from career progression.

I'm not saying anyone should take legal action, just trying to point out that the Law is behind her whichever route she takes.

I personally think sticking your neck out without full knowledge of her legal rights is far more risky.

And, as I pointed out earlier, legal aid is still viable for cases of discrimination.

The European Court is particularly useful for institutional inequality but obvs as a last resort.

Information is power. Cynicism is the enemy of progress.