Lawyers challenge Edinburgh University on EDI requirements for staff

[WaterThyme]

The Herald reports that “a group of lawyers called “Alumni for Free Speech” [AFFS] has sent an email to senior figures at <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/g3rAw/www.heraldscotland.com/local-news/edinburgh-news/?ref=au" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Edinburgh University this week raising concerns about the legality of the way the university recruits people and promotes its staff. The lawyers have also told the university they’ll be reporting it to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/g3rAw/www.heraldscotland.com/topics/charity/?ref=au" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Charity Commission and the Scottish Funding Council.”

“The problem the lawyers at AFFS have with EDI and Edinburgh in particular is that they’ve found job advertisements which list as an “essential” attribute a “demonstrable commitment to promoting and embedding equality, diversity and inclusion principles and practices”. AFFS also believes that commitment to EDI is systematically embedded in the university’s promotions process.”

AFFS believe this can “create a situation in which people looking for a job or promotion believe that if they are to have any chance of getting the job or the promotion, they have to actively agree with or promote a particular set of values – or certainly not openly disagree with them. It also means people who do not believe in some of the tenets of EDI – gender-critical feminists for example – feel compelled to self-censor for the sake of their careers. “

This is in spite of such beliefs being legally protected under the Equality Act.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/26093640.chilling-edinburgh-university-equality-problem/

Archived at https://archive.ph/g3rAw

It will be interesting to see how that develops.

It’s going to take years to sort that stuff out

What a pathetic waste of time and money.

equality- treating everyone fairly
diversity- acknowledging myriad life experiences impact people differently
inclusion- ensuring those people with different life experiences arent prevented from accessing something. Are we really saying that as humans in 2026 we don’t believe these tenets are right and proper?

I once saw a recruitment pipeline for a department that had 70% shortlisted Asian candidates. That meant all of those candidates met the essential criteria.

Guess what? All white applicants appointed. An all white department. Clearly bias in a recruitment process that once identified, can be challenged. That’s what EDI is meant to identify and address- systemic bias.

The fact a group of lawyers are too stupid to understand this is concerning, at least their names will be out there so people can see who to avoid.

Like you, I agree with the principles of EDI. However, the reality of EDI often looks quite different. It often leads to people no longer daring to voice disagreement with positions, even if they have very good reasons for their disagreement. It leads to echo chambers.

spottybegonia
equality- treating everyone fairly
diversity- acknowledging myriad life experiences impact people differently
inclusion- ensuring those people with different life experiences arent prevented from accessing something.

Are we really saying that as humans in 2026 we don’t believe these tenets are right and proper?
Not at all, I don't know where you got that idea!
You may not be aware of this, but women are currently not treated fairly, our different life experiences are not acknowledged, and there are many examples of women being prevented from accessing things because of their life experiences and beliefs.

There's a whole thread about women poets who are being excluded because of their gender-critical beliefs.

The problem lies with negative developments in EDI/DEI - it has become unbalanced and over-focused on trans issues with the result that other groups, such as women, disabled people, lesbians and gays, have been de-emphasised.

I'm sure if Edinburgh University had a fair, inclusive, equal and diverse EDI policy, there wouldn't be a need for this challenge.

I agree EDI only works if the values the organisation holds include fairness for everyone and not just a select few who happen to be flavour of the month. The reality of the situation is that they are not doing EDI at all, quite the opposite.

If you lower the standards to shoehorn people into a job they're not qualified to do, then you're not raising all boats, your dragging all the other boats down to the bottom.

Was Kathleen Stock treated fairly? Your point would be stronger if there wasn’t such a long list of Employment Tribunals showing that EDI can be used very authoritarianly.

Where you see “treating everyone fairly” others are reminded of Vaclav Havel’s Greengrocer.

Oh fgs.

They should be basically done under trades description.

It is NOT equality or diversity or inclusion when you are carefully ordering exactly what beliefs and groups people may come from and things they may say to be acceptable. It's the exact opposite of actual inclusion or diversity or equality. And who is ordering it will be a group of privileged people high on their own personal politics who have decided which special pets from the lower orders that they feel lovely about patronising and head patting.

They have absolutely no intention of sharing their power with anyone they don't see as 'one of them' or a pet they can basically use to say to others in their gang 'look how lovely I am putting X in this position!'. (Can they do the job? Well no, but won't they make us look lovely in photographs and marketing burble?)

Nauseating. There is only one group in the nine characteristics who ever seems to want to be patronised like this; the rest largely just want to be seen as equal and the same as everyone else.

The lawyers won't be arguing that it is improper to require candidates to demonstrate willingness/ability to comply with equality law. They will be arguing that Edinburgh's recruitment/promotions processes require something else, something that in itself violates equality law.

Isn't that fairly obvious?

EDIT: If your take on what a group of lawyers are doing is that they are "too stupid to understand", there is a fair old chance that you are parodying what they are actually doing.

They will be arguing that Edinburgh's recruitment/promotions processes require something else, something that in itself violates equality law.

^^

Thanks very much for sharing and I will be watching with interest. In my sector questions on EDI are very common as part of the recruitment process but as others have pointed out, with Edinburgh it's really a case of 'it ain't what you, it's the way that you do it'. However, this could be quite important in terms of helping others organisations understand what is and isn't acceptable to require from people on this.

Yes, I am not sure that this is being very well articulated, even by friendly commentators.

There's an inconsistency between the real world EDI policy, and the underlying dual objective, of complying with equality law, and, in the interests of free speech, not blocking unobjectionable manifestations of protected (ie Grainger-compliant) beliefs.

If the EDI policy requires the institution to treat holders of some protected beliefs more favourably than others, as to employment, promotion, and access to free speech, that's discrimination as to protected belief, which is only legal for explicitly religious organisations.

Like most here I believe in EDI as it was originally intended to be, to make sure that staff weren’t appointed and promoted because they fitted the norm of being a white male. EDI was to ensure that women, people of colour, those from minority faiths, those who are disabled etc could get a fair shot with some support if appropriate to make up for previous disadvantage. With the full expectation that they could do the job and bring their life experience to enrich the whole team.

EDI was also intended to counter the prejudices that sidelined the groups who were a minority such as racism, sexism, homophobia and ableism.

What EDI has turned into in some institutions such as Edinburgh University (my Alma mater) is one where people apparently have to pledge total adherence to the trans ideology creed.

As a lifelong feminist, if I went back to my old uni and argued that the needs of women for safety, dignity and privacy were now in contention with trans ideology, I’d be in trouble. Or worse if I spoke up for my real beliefs that sex is real, men can never be women, and women can never be men.

Like JKR, I believe that people who identify as trans can dress how they like and sleep with any consenting partner, but they can’t change their sex and sex matters. I am horrified that Edinburgh University has abandoned free speech and its long illustrious history of seeking knowledge and truth.

You have missed the point, quite spectacularly.

In essence, the very dominance groups and behaviours that EDI was created to prevent having unfair control, have simply adopted, controlled and weaponised EDI to crack on with their dominance and behaviours. And had the power to do so.

As a society, we removed the need to profess a religious creed in order to secure a university placement, a job, or an appointment in public life, but now we've somehow brought the practice back again in the form of EDI. No-one should have to lie about their beliefs or agree to adhere to a particular creed in order to secure a living.

Interesting parallel.

I wonder how a requirement for a “demonstrable commitment to the Risen Christ as our Lord and Saviour” would go down.

Having grown up in N Ireland during The Troubles, I experienced first hand how a civic society/public sector/devolved government organised on the preferred adherence to one religion over another negatively affected people's prospects and lives.

I feel as though EDI is replicating the sectarianism of the past.