Oxford University submission to Stonewall's Workplace Equality Index

[Mollyollydolly]

I couldn't see this posted any where else .. apologies if I've missed it.
Helen Joyce posted this on twitter yesterday Oxford Uni's's submission to Stonewall's WorkPlace Equality Index. It's 100 pages, don't try and read it all, but well worth a look. PLEASE look at the various illustrations at the end.

What a complete and utter waste of time and it makes Oxford look like a complete laughing stock.
I cant stop laughing. Still don't know why the giraffe is there. Is it one of Dawn Butlers?

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/725260/response/1738979/attach/3/Annex%20A%20WEI%202020.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

I remember there used to be a deeply homophobic saying about gay men liking to ‘play the pink oboe’ ..: surely it can’t be referring to that? It’d be highly offensive and it’s also the wrong wind instrument, so it probably does mean that, on second thoughts.

That was what it made me think of, justawoman, but surely it can’t be that?

The only question that should be asked is: how much money does all this work cost and what impact does it have on the day to day life of students and staff at Oxford. Ie, is it value for money?

The meaning of the pink plastic recorder, pg. 22:

www.glam.ox.ac.uk/files/outinoxfordtrailbookletfinalforwebsmallfilesizepdf

This has got to someone taking the piss surely?

Ahhhhh...

I should be used to non sequiturs and leaps of logic by now, but the first paragraph which is headed “pink plastic recorder” doesn’t actually mention or explain pink plastic recorders

The second one clears it up.

I see. As a musician I really doubt it’s impossible to tell the difference between a plastic and a wooden recorder when played.

Unlawful to directly or indirectly discriminate someone (or their
family / friends) due to their gender identity or sexuality

Indirect discrimination does not apply to associated persons - only direct discrimination

Also, I understand why they don't like the implications of the suggestion that being trans is a mental illness, but I very much dislike the way that often leads on to stigmatising mental illness. I still remember an angry and exasperated Theresa May spitting out that "It is NOT a MENTAL ILLNESS!" To me, that sounded very much like the suggestion that mental illness is somehow shameful, dirty and to be spoken of in hushed, negative terms, whereas being trans is clearly something to be celebrated, of course.

Excellent point. It would be much easier to have this debate if mental illness wasn't so stigmatised.

I should have included the text from the listings:

Pink Plastic recorder
Date: Early 21st century
Accession number: FMI.0405
Location: Recorder case

Europe has a long history of using bright colours and symbols to represent LGBTQ+ people. In the late 19th and early 20th century, gay Londoners and Parisians wore a green carnation; Oscar Wilde is a famous example. Under Nazism, gay prisoners in concentration camps had to wear a pink triangle as a sign of shame. This symbol was reclaimed in the 1970s as a symbol of gay rights and protest. Since 2000, the Independent on Sunday has published the Pink List to celebrate influential LGBTQ+ people in the UK. It was renamed the Rainbow List in 2014 and the rainbow flag is now the most popular LGBTQ+ symbol. The first rainbow flag had eight stripes and was designed by Gilbert Baker in San Francisco in 1978. The flag is a symbol of unity between all people and a celebration of diversity.

Beth Asbury

Untitled watercolour featuring the pink plastic recorder
Date: Early 21st century
Artist: Claire Davis, formerly of the Ruskin School of Fine Art
Country of origin: England, UK
Location: Wall next to the Recorder case

Although not created with an LGBTQ+ theme in mind, this watercolour echoes the experience of many queer people when trying to ‘fit in’ to mainstream society. I was fascinated to hear from the curator that, by sound alone, it is not possible to tell the pink plastic recorder apart from one of its more respectable wooden companions. I feel lucky to have grown up in a time and place where it tends to be accepted that, similarly, LGBTQ+ people are the same deep-down as everyone else, even if we do initially seem a bit strange, a bit different. But often, we can find ourselves caught between embracing a colourful, loud and proud identity or suppressing our ‘pinkness’ so that we can be fully accepted as part of the group, just like everyone else. LGBTQ+ groups, pubs and events can be a huge comfort; it is great to hang out, every now and again, with other ‘pink recorders’ in a space that feels fully ours, where we do not have to think about whether we look out of place or not.

Rachael Seculer-Faber

@Soontobe60

The only question that should be asked is: how much money does all this work cost and what impact does it have on the day to day life of students and staff at Oxford. Ie, is it value for money?

That isn't the only question. They also need to ask does this improve relations between people with a protected characteristic and those without? Does it discriminate against other protected characteristics? Does it impact free speech or academic freedom? How does this reflect the university's ethos and reputation? And even: is it correct?

This is very interesting
8.4 Has your organisation done any further work in the past year to promote LGBT equality in the wider community?

This references a leaflet produced by the Geography department on how to plan events keeping diversity in mind. It includes a checklist about diversity (sex isn’t mentioned) and includes the following bullet point. Note that the Geography department seem to think that you can identify as black. And I thought that when Rachel Dolezal did just that she was castigated for appropriating a race that she didn’t belong to?

Intersectionality and how that will inform their experience, e.g. ‘a person could be gender non- conforming, a parent with caring responsibilities, and identifying as black

Maybe the Geography department should just stick to maps?

I was fascinated to hear from the curator that, by sound alone, it is not possible to tell the pink plastic recorder apart from one of its more respectable wooden companions

Not true. The timbre of wooden instruments is different from that of plastic instruments.

[quote EmbarrassingAdmissions]The meaning of the pink plastic recorder, pg. 22:

www.glam.ox.ac.uk/files/outinoxfordtrailbookletfinalforwebsmallfilesizepdf[/quote]
This frames being LGBTQ+ as just being a bit different for any reason.

Hilariously my phone is now showing me adverts for makeup bags with giraffes embroidered on them on this page 😂 (alternating with adverts for doing an MBA at Oxford 🤣)

Scammers scamming. Both sides.
Who ever cobbled this together did not think anyone would ever actually read it.

Page 205 has this gem:

"Remember, these
people are
attacked in most
place, they should
not feel like that
here"

Wtf does that mean? It's illiterate.

How many people sat through that training, at what cost in wages/time to the attendees? And how many of them challenged the nonsense on them or felt comfortable enough to ask if Oxford Uni. had done their due diligence and checked the assertions?

Someone didn’t pay attention in haiku lesson

I've decided to write a haiku
Apparently there are special rules
But I'll ignore them because I'm special
Fuck you.

A comment from Helen Joyce's twitter about this document:

Shocking, how Stonewall has set about embedding their demands and there is no escape. Look at the tender/procurement process. Anyone wanting to be a supplier (of what? Anything a university needs? Microscopes? Cleaning supplies? Catering?) needs to show THEY meet the standard too!

Sounds suspiciously like a protection racket, only use suppliers that we approve of and/or are signed up to our scheme, now what other organisation famously employs these tactics?

and of course the suppliers are being asked to confirm that their written policies are in line with the incorrect version of the EQA, the ones that Stonewall persistently and deliberately dictate.

Oxford deserve to be made a laughing stock for this document, who would want to pay to attend an educational establishment that produces this level of legally and factually incorrect nonsense.

Imagine the difference that could be made for people with disabilities if a fraction of the effort and energy expended on this document was expended on them.

I am sick and tired of the constant ignoring of all the other protected characteristics in the EQA that is being driven by Stonewall and cravenly followed by institutions across the board.

Also, the “stats crime” bit - claims that there are 30,000 trans people in the UK?

Meanwhile, Stonewall claims there are 600,000?

I suppose it depends on what fits with the narrative that you want to put across. You can't have it both ways: demanding to be considered and treated exactly the same as anybody else of the sex (often wrongly labelled 'gender') that you identify as, but then also wanting special dispensation and favourable treatment on the grounds that you aren't the same as either of the established sexes.

"Remember, these
people are
attacked in most
place, they should
not feel like that
here"

That sounds like an extract from a washing machine manual that's gone through about 16 languages in a Google Translate chain.