Is This worse than we thought?

[politics4me]

Stonewall is now heavily criticised but not yet forced onto the backfoot. I was dismayed to read a letter in Times today from which I quote.
From, Professor Selina Todd [Modern History Oxford], about the influence of Athena Scientific Women’s Academic Network (Swan) which is part of Advance HE.
Universities not accredited by Swan are ineligible to apply for funding from UK Research and Innovation, the UK’s largest research funding body.
To obtain accreditation, Advance HE advises or requires Universities to collect equality data(sic) based in gender not sex. Further they are required to prioritise “inclusivity” above debate about the meaning of debate about equality.
To be banned from even applying for funding on such grounds seems to build in bias at the foundation level.
What can you tell us about Advance HE?

Collecting data for monitoring which doesn't map to the EA leaves institutions vulnerable if someone makes a legal discrimination or harassment claim under the EA. Gender reassignment, sex and sexual orientation are separate PCs.

You might want to raise this with either DofE, UKRI or the office for students (they regulate English Uni's). This seems to cover a few of the current issues in the HE sector; freedom of speech, institutional independence, EDI, access for women etc. You could highlight this.

I have it on good authority that there are a lot of women in the above organisations who would be VERY sympathetic on this issue. Yet a lot of people higher up in the orgs (the decision makers are overwhelmingly male) who are oblivious to the far reaching implications of self ID/the trans agenda.

*Name changed for obvious reasons 😬

Whenever you hear of an institution adopting gender ideology, always, always follow the money.

Last I heard, the UKRI had dropped holding Athena Swan as a funding application requirement as had NIHR, which used to require that applicants had the Silver award at least.

Having had extensive experience in this area, it is actually incredibly hard to collect 'gender' data or at least to do so in a way that isn't just respondents using gender synonymously with sex when responding. Where non-binary responses are allowed for, the data can be very small even in large organisations.

The new AdvancedHE guidance wants more emphasis on inclusivity and intersectionality but crucially is not requiring additional data in this area.

I admire Selina's work by the way, but - sorry can't view her letter - I did want to just indicate that the guidance is a bit more complex than suggested and also that on the ground it not as clear cut in terms of what 'gender' data means.

UKRI is a public body. "Since UKRI was established in 2018, we have
supported more than 52,800 awards with a combined value of more than £22 billion"

how did gender replace sex in awards worth £22 billion?

'Advance HE'

Oh how apt

@Epli

'Advance HE'

Oh how apt

Higher Education

UKRI have come up on my radar before. They are an amalgamation of all the research councils. From their 'about us' page:

Launched in April 2018, UKRI is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).

Our organisation brings together the seven disciplinary research councils, Research England, which is responsible for supporting research and knowledge exchange at higher education institutions in England, and the UK’s innovation agency, Innovate UK.

The attached screenshot is from their document "Gender equality and international development research and innovation" which you can download here:
www.ukri.org/about-us/policies-standards-and-data/good-research-resource-hub/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/

I think SWAN may be conflating gender with sex, because in this article by the BMJ, they say:

"Primary and secondary outcome measures Gender diversity, defined as female representation rates of positions in managerial leadership (eg, heads of institutions, department heads) and professors."

If true then that would be a good thing. However, language is key.

bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/2/e032915.abstract?cf_chl_jschl_tk=KOf13OaFRKybuwXBCaLmSOirGWsfPxL0FeODgUJ3GMM-1635942049-0-gaNycGzNCuU

www.advance-he.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan-charter

The issue is with the Athena SWAN charter framework itself. It used to be focused on advancing women's careers in science. Scientific funders (who quite rightly wanted to increase women's participation in science) started saying from 2011 that institutions had to have a certain level of Athena SWAN award in order to receive public funding. This was a huge deal for institutions as they had to comply and work to gain an award or lose most of the funding they received.

At some point after that however, the charter was captured and is now about 'inclusion for all gender identities'. You know, because there can't be anything just for women.

It's a great example of something that was well-intentioned and forced universities to take seriously the kind of environment they were creating for female scientists, which was then completely hollowed out by gender identity politics.

The public funders have now dropped Athena SWAN requirements due to a wider push on minimising research bureaucracy, so I think it's probably less influential than it was, although I'm sure its principles will now be firmly embedded in universities.

This is an issue which is much wider than SWAN.

Stonewall has embedded policies across many public institutions. The Competition and Markets Authority allows all staff to spend 10% of their time on equality/diversity initiatives. They are also recruiting for a legal director where one of the essential criteria for applicants is to show ‘commitment to diversity’. I somehow get the impression that supporting the LBG Alliance wouldn’t count. By making commitment to a particular ideology as a condition for employment, Stonewall make sure that their supporters are in positions of power.