Dundee University gives contextual offers to transgender pupils

[Aphrathestorm]

https://www.dundee.ac.uk/corporate-information/contextual-admissions-policy

I was looking into the widening access policies of Scottish universities and came across this on Dundee University's website.

All the others are very clear that any protected characteristics in the Equality Act (sex,disability,race etc) are not in any way considered as part of the application process.

Not only is this a potentially unlawful policy but it could lead to vulnerable pupils being pushed into transing by parents/teachers who want them to get into certain courses eg Medicine.

Those are on Dundee’s list.

@medianewbie
Would the fact he gets PIP not be "proof".
What evidence did you need to submit with PIP application? You could use that

If that was true it would also be illegal to make contextual offers to those from low participation postcodes, or poorly performing schools, given neither of those are protected characteristics.

Or are you suggesting the entire UK HE sector is making illegal offers?

Am I correct that DS wouldn't therefore qualify for a contextual offer (if GP wont write letter) but Dd, who like all her friends at school is 'probably Trans, Mum' would ???

Yes!

This is shocking discrimination against disabled pupils.

Are you suggesting postcodes or schools are proxies for protected characteristics? That using postcodes gives unfair advantage to certain protected characteristics and discriminated against other??

@medianewbie I'm disabled. If my GP did not give a letter, I could use PIP, but not every organisation will accept anything other than a GP letter. What do you do then? And as I keep emphasising, they should NOT be asking for medical evidence, or copies of PIP etc. Its a legal definition, not a medical definition. Anyone could challenge a request to provide proof and take the uni to court. I'm sure the trans community will have similar arguments - how do you prove that they are or are not, trans? its a bloody stupid admission criteria overall.

Are you suggesting postcodes or schools are proxies for protected characteristics? That using postcodes gives unfair advantage to certain protected characteristics and discriminated against other??

Eh?

I'm suggesting that your comment, I.E. that using anything other than protected characteristics to make contextual offers is illegal, is bollocks.

HTH

You need to reread what I wrote. I said it is illegal to use protected characteristics to make contextual offers. You cannot discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics. So any contextual offers you make must not put certain protected characteristics at a disadvantage. So, for example, if you gave preferential treatment to certain schools that may be legal, but if the schools you gave preferential treatment to were Roman Catholic schools then that would be illegal.

So any contextual offers you make must not put certain protected characteristics at a disadvantage. So, for example, if you gave preferential treatment to certain schools that may be legal, but if the schools you gave preferential treatment to were Roman Catholic schools then that would be illegal.

Ok I slightly misunderstood you - apologies.

However I'm still not sure the above is true either in the context of Dundee's (and others) contextual offers. I agree with your example, but nothing in Dundee's list suggests that anyone with any of the protected characteristics would be disadvantaged - indeed two characteristics have been cited for advantageous treatment which is perfectly legal.

two characteristics have been cited for advantageous treatment which is perfectly legal.

protected characteristics include presence and absence - you are protected from discrimination as a man, and you are protected from discrimination as a woman. Equally married/not married, pregnant/not pregnant, black/white/Asian. This also includes NOT having gender reassignment as well as having it. So giving advantageous treatment to those with gender reassignment discriminated against those without it.

The only exception* is disability. The equality act makes clear that people with the protected characteristics of disability CAN be treated more favourably.

*as I say there are also some exceptions such as a Catholic Seminary is allow you just recruit catholics.

But the criteria ISN'T gender reassignment. It's 'trans' - which tbh probably includes some categories that the EA doesn't include so it's not actually using an EA characteristic anyway.

And how come if disability is the only one that can be treated more favourably, is it perfectly legal that for example all black or lesbian applicants with essential criteria for a job will be interviewed. Isn't that treating them more favourably?

They use ‘transgender’ but that correlates almost 100% with gender reassignment so it discriminated against those without gender reassignment. You don’t need to name the protected characteristics, you just need to have grouping that impact disproportionately on one. So for example saying no single parents would be sex discrimination as that disproportionately affects women.

Interviewing all black or lesbian applicants but not all others would be discrimination. If they are under represented in your company then you could put ‘we particularly welcome black applicants’ in your advert but they need to be under represented to do this.

Disability is allowed to be treated more fairly as this is often needed to overcome the substantial long term negative affect the disability has on ability to do normal day to day activities.

So. My Ds has ASD & clinical Anxiety. He receives PIP at high level (both) as when his Anxiety is really bad he has Grand Mal seizure-like spasms. Currently at College (little accommodation but he does receive Disabled Student Allowance). Our GP is skeptical (we're rural so no other GP available). He wants to go to Dundee.

Am I correct that DS wouldn't therefore qualify for a contextual offer

Get him to stick some lippy on, call himself Mary and he'll be grand.

So my dc who will be 18 before applying to university can change their sex according to the GRR act in a matter of weeks and get a lower offer based on that?

Actually forget the 18 business they'll be able to self I'd at 16.

They use ‘transgender’ but that correlates almost 100% with gender reassignment so it discriminated against those without gender reassignment. You don’t need to name the protected characteristics, you just need to have grouping that impact disproportionately on one. So for example saying no single parents would be sex discrimination as that disproportionately affects women

Trans absolutely does not means Gender reassignment! Only the intention to live permanently as the new gender. So I think that criteria wouldn't discriminate.

If one of the criteria (let's say low SIMD for argument's sake) disproportionally affects black applicant - ie they are more widely located in low SIMD areas) - are you saying it is illegal to have this as a criteria as it indirectly disproportionally advantages one of the protected characteristics that isn't disability?

It seems highly unlikely that trans students are underrepresented at any university.

titchy

“A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone a process (or part of a process) to reassign their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex (Equality Act 2010, Section 7 (1)). There is no requirement for a trans person to have any kind of medical supervision or intervention, nor to have a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to be protected from gender reassignment discrimination. Trans people are legally protected from discrimination from the moment they propose to change their sex.”

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/protecting-people-sex-and-gender-reassignment-discrimination

If one of the criteria (let's say low SIMD for argument's sake) disproportionally affects black applicant - ie they are more widely located in low SIMD areas) - are you saying it is illegal to have this as a criteria as it indirectly disproportionally advantages one of the protected characteristics

Potentially, yes. If you were a member of the lowest achieving demographic in the UK (white working class males from seaside towns) with similar deprivation but as a less densely populated area so can’t meet SIMD criteria, then you could try launching a discrimination claim. However someone from that demographic is unlikely to have the resources to do this.

Ah ok understood. I thought you were inferring actual physical reassignment ie surgery, I thought the EA wording was different.

Can you answer my other point though? Genuinely interested if some of the contextual WP offers made by unis may inadvertently be illegal.

Oops sorry cross posted!

Interesting. Certainly some of the low IMD areas in London are populated largely by one ethnic group, so London unis who make contextual offers that include IMD 1 and recruit locally could be breaking the law. Despite our Government appointed regulator approving those measures.

(Not sure what someone not being able to afford legal action is - if it's wrong, it's wrong. And of course a class action could be interesting. Maybe with the Good Law Project )

At my teenagers school, it's the norm to be LGBTQ and so the ones providing the diversity are the heterosexual ones.

My other child is in halls of residence at university. In her flat of ten there is one student who identifies as heterosexual.

Maybe with the Good Law Project

Giving up before you’ve even started then? 😂

Can you imagine