Need some help being a judge

[Athenajm80]

I volunteered to judge nominations for an award at work (Civil Service department, we have been Stonewalled but it's not really obvious thankfully)

We have to write our thoughts on each nomination but then will meet and discuss them to decide who wins.

One nomination is for a non binary person, lots of use of "they". The work side of the nomination is ok, but then a good section of the form goes on about how x has done their normal job whilst still representing and standing for LGBT++ colleagues, including getting the entire department to now state their pronouns on their emails.

I COULD just focus on the work part and base my opinion on that, but I want to be prepared for the pronoun part to come up in the discussion and to be able to explain coherently why that has caused me to mark the person lower.

I was thinking of putting something about this putting pressure on GC colleagues, trans/non binary people who aren't "out" yet, but didn't know what else I could say that makes it sound like a well thought out point, rather than an attack (literal violence!) on the candidate. I'm not too bothered if they disagree or if it counts against me at work, partly cause I'm only on a secondment, but I want to make people think.

Do you think I could say something about it being discriminatory against those with gender critical beliefs which are protected in law and refer to the Forstater case? It may be unreasonable of me, but I don't want this person to win based on "how brave and strong" they are, when actually it's not IMO brave and strong to follow the Stonewall yoonique shit.

Sorry for the long post!

Oh Christ, don't mark them lower because of that! There is no way anyone would come out of that well!?!?

Do you know how this person "got" their department to state pronouns? I think that would be relevant.
How have they represented and stood for LGBT colleagues? Were they elected? Or did they just say what they want to happen, without having been asked to do so by colleagues?

I think it depends a great deal on what the award is. Is the T+++ stuff relevant? If not, then I think it's legitimate to comment that the evidence they have submitted is outwith the relevant criteria, and that raised concerns about their focus, both on the award itself, but also that their activism is diverting attention from their core job role.

If it is relevant then I think you have to critique the execution rather than their beliefs. Yes, GC beliefs are protected but, equally, so are theirs. So you might want to look at, for example, if everyone having pronouns in signatures increased team cohesion or if some people felt isolated, and whether they were able to listen to and involve people with different views.

Of course, this only holds true if their LGBT++ activism has actually posed a problem in the workplace. If they've increased openess and inclusion, and supported people who needed it, it might actually be a positive even though you disagree with them. And, really, whether or not you agree with their beliefs should not be a factor in deciding on an award. What should matter is the impact of those beliefs in the work environment.

Please ensure you are fair and treat every entry on its merits. Don't seek to make an example of this person or their actions.

If the main premise is that they've been brave, I think it's fair to say it's important to consider repercussions (intended or otherwise) and be sure you do this with all nominations.

Apply the same criteria to all and the outcome will be fair.

Getting colleagues to add their pronouns is hardly a significant contribution to diversity is it? Installing ramps, supporting someone ND, changing an adoption leave policy, representing someone being sacked because their manager wasn't comfortable with their sexuality - those have required real effort, have had tangible benefits and are worthy of praise.

If the award is to do with work, focus on their work - the activism is irrelevant. It sounds like their work might be a bit light because of all the time spent on activism anyway.

If the award is to do with inclusion in the workplace, then you can consider whether their activism in this area is better/more impactful than the other candidates.

I'm as GC as they come but I don't think this is a good venue to pipe up about your own beliefs, especially if this is about their work.

Thank you for all your responses, you're right, I should probably ignore it or take @Motorina 's advice in the first paragraph. The award is nothing to do with activism, diversity, inclusion which now, thinking more about it, is probably why it annoyed me so much. It's the fact that it was shoe-horned in when irrelevant but that's not necessarily the candidate's fault.

They do also look irritatingly smug and like the TRA protestors captured on video. No blue hair though 😂 Obviously this bit is just me being... judgemental and is definitely irrelevant.

Once again, thank you. You have made me think twice and take a more rational and sensible approach.

They've maybe misunderstood the protected characteristics of the EA, or perhaps that's irrelevant. Something to explore?

Depends on if the award is for a specific piece of work or more generally on behaviour in the workplace.

I’d critique their work, then say something like… “I’m also mindful of what could be termed their political activity in the workplace. The civil service is of course required to be politically neutral. It is no secret that there is a highly emotional political debate currently raging between trans activists on the one hand, and those with more gender critical beliefs on the other. Both groups have their beliefs protected as a matter of equality law, particularly in the workplace. It’s my understanding that Candidate X has lobbied colleagues in the workplace to support their political position and that creates an inhospitable environment for employees with gender critical beliefs, which has legal implications. For example, pressuring colleagues to state pronouns in email signatures is a well known way of stating support for a certain political ideology. I question whether this is anymore appropriate than asking colleagues to add “vote Brexit” would have been a few years ago. There is a tension with our obligations of political neutrality. I’m cautious about this. I think that in the workplace Candidate X could benefit from reflecting on the extent to which their activities at work could be perceived as failing to be politically neutral. Some might even be said to cause concern regarding the civil service’s legal obligation not to discriminate against employees with gender critical beliefs. And, as I said, there are the issues with X’s work. I prefer Candidate Y because…”

I think it would be relevant to note their contribution to the LGBT community and use it as a bridge to ask about the other 7 protected characteristics and who is championing them. If activism is applauded, how are the other candidates standing up for the other characteristics? Be scrupulously fair.

Or alternatively, what Charlotte says

You can't dismiss them or mark them lower than everyone else just because they're non binary for goodness sake!.
That's the definition of discriminatory.
Yes, the law says you're entitled to your beliefs. It doesn't say you are entitled to treat anyone else differently due to them though.
Which you would be doing if you're doing it because they're "irritatingly smug" and "TRA like just without blue hair" 😕 and because you don't agree or whatever about being non binary.

Please ensure you are fair and treat every entry on its merits.
This

That is absolutely brilliant. I'm going to keep a copy of it to have as a template and suggest others who like me can be at a loss for words when furious. I really am in awe!

i’m GC and civil service. Do not under any circumstances mention the non-binary/pronouns issue in your judging rationale!

I would say you have made yourself potentially identifiable in this post. How many people in the civil service are going to be judging employees with one NB person on the list.

Ignore it. If anyone challenges you, explain that it was irrelevant to the award.

Charlotte nails it. But only if you aren't going to create problems for yourself by mentioning it.

Don't mention it unless it's raised as a positive.

So all your comments are about the work. When someone else says 'and we should applaud them for being stunning and brave', that's the time to channel Charlotte's advice.

Is it appropriate to the work place, or is it a personal political belief?
Are we equally recognising inclusion of all the protected characteristics?
Do we want to pressure people to out themselves or indeed should we be encouraging people to feel obliged to state their sexuality/gender?

Agree with this!

I see this frequently in awards for my line of work. Some people have done a lot to further equality, but others think that “being” a member of a protected category is enough. On analysis there is precious little done to help others in the same or other protected groups, and a lot of promotion of themselves.

Insofar as activism is in any way relevant to what you are judging I think you need to focus on what they have done rather than what they are.

If the award is for their work and not for activities on diversity, then judge them on their work. Sorry I assumed it was a diversity award because of how much time you took to describe this area

So stick to work fgs. Have any of them implemented a new process that has streamlined your area or created a dashboard to inform your wider community? Done a newsletter to raise the dept profile? Acted up for an absent colleague? Represented your group at external events?

If the awards are for their actual work product, but someone’s seen fit to shoehorn in a load of non-pertinent (to the award criteria) information, then I think you’re safe to ignore the extraneous stuff, in the same way you’d ignore a nominee’s work on promoting disability access, or hiring diversity if THAT wasn’t relevant to this either.

Just don’t mention it at all. Stick to judging the evidence that IS pertinent to the award. If they get your vote purely on that basis, great. Just be consistent and fair with your marking - nobody can have any objections if you do that.

You can't dismiss them or mark them lower than everyone else just because they're non binary for goodness sake!

Janet, again, you have made this up. Read the OP. Did you really not understand?

Janet has a point:

I COULD just focus on the work part and base my opinion on that, but I want to be prepared for the pronoun part to come up in the discussion and to be able to explain coherently why that has caused me to mark the person lower.

Given the award is for WORK not contribution to diversity, OP should not even be considering the pronoun thing - it's irrelevant.

Exactly, thanks, that's what I was referring to.
It's not me who isn't understanding, I mean it's right there in the post!
I haven't made anything up.
I'm assuming you missed that bit, laughingpriest?