| Diversity and Inclusion - a concern | ||
|
In the beginning was the Race Relations Act 1965. It was quite revolutionary for its time and made unlawful a new category of behaviour which for millennia had been regarded as perfectly acceptable - looking after your own at the expense of the incomer, the foreigner (in the widest sense). For the first time, the law banned racial discrimination in public places. For the first time, also, it made illegal the encouragement of an emotion - hatred - on the grounds of “colour, race, or ethnic or national origins”. Of course, as a moral statement, it had something of the magician’s ‘smoke and mirrors’ about it, as controls on immigration remained. So then we were against discrimination, but only for those already here or for the relative few permitted to come here by our immigration laws. Which meant that most of the world was in fact kept out of our newly-benign regime. But although our new-found morality began and stayed at home, the Statute was criticised by some for being little short of the introduction of ‘thought crime’. However things did not stop
there. Although a major change, it was
shortly afterwards criticised for failing to
address those areas of life where
discrimination was in fact most prevalent -
employment and finding somewhere to live.
This led to the passing of the 1968
Race Relations Act, which made unlawful any
discrimination with regard to employment,
housing and advertising. From 1970 onwards,
the scope of the circumstances under which
discrimination was to be regarded as illegal
was extended to such things as disability and
sex discrimination of various sorts. Following
the issuing of a Directive by the EU, all of
the old law, with an extension to include
‘harassment’ in respect of any of the
‘protected characteristics*’, was incorporated
in the Equality Act 2010.
These
days, large organisations, such as companies
and universities, feel they must be seen to be
taking steps to stop people having grounds for
a complaint of discrimination. This is because
they believe, rightly or wrongly that most of
us now do not like to see discrimination take
place and, more pertinently, it will
potentially cost them a lot of money in
compensation. But. But in trying
to right a wrong, we do seem to be going far
too far. It seems that on the coat-tails of
action to prevent discrimination as defined in
the legislation, entire new moral codes have
been created which govern peoples’ working
hours. This is so in many organisations and,
although it may not have the force of law, it
can have a similar effect upon your life if
you fall foul of it. And it really is
very close to being thought crime. Let me
explain by reference to the Warwick University
Dignity policy (which I came across by
chance):
“The University expects all members of the University to recognise their responsibilities and to:
On the surface the rules sound
unexceptionable - let’s be nice to each other.
Failure to abide by the code can however lead
to serious consequences, because there are
complaint procedures which can be followed.
And if you examine the code more closely there
seem to be some inherent contradictions.
Let us start with the superficially admirable requirement to “value difference in others and the contribution they make”. This is an unqualified requirement, but in what sense can it be said that difference is always to be valued? I know people who are clearly racist. I don’t mean people who aren’t always very careful in the way they speak about ‘others’, but who really do think that people of other races or skin colour are lesser beings. As a young lawyer, I used to have clients who were violent and other who were thieves. Later on, I had clients who were so devoted to money that you would count your fingers after having shaken hands with them. Are those ‘differences’ to be valued or perhaps, instead, resisted? Would we value the ‘contribution’ made by such a person? I don’t think so. Perhaps though the policy means
that we should value differences and
appreciate the contributions made by people
who are ‘not very different to us’, who hold
what one may regard as ‘main-stream views’.
But none of that is stated or indeed capable of definition. And I
doubt that that is the intention. I imagine that the policy is actually aimed at people who are, for example,
Moslem in a Christian country, or people who
are members of other minorities such as
being homosexual or feel that they are of
the wrong gender. So what happens to
that other minority who believe that
homosexuality is a sin or that Muslims are
going to hell – because they are Muslims?
Does everyone get equal air-time? It
seems not from the no-platforming which has
become fashionable in the academic world.
Previously respected, but controversial
public figures, such as Germaine Greer, have
been no-platformed as they don’t hold the
‘right’ views even though they have been in
the forefront of bringing about what many
would regard as beneficial change in our
society. But no, naïve students want to put their
fingers in their ears. And do those who
no-platform run foul of the Dignity policy –
and if not, why not?
Then there is the question of
playing sport. If a student receives a yellow
or red card during a game of football, what
then? Will students who play rugby be
expelled from the University if they fail to
display courtesy and good manners in the
middle of a ruck or a scrum? They’ll
probably all go for a drink together
afterwards, but it is surely asking quite a
lot to expect them to behave in accordance
with such a code in the middle of such a
physical game.
And if others have ‘different
styles and expectations’, how is this to be
managed? To see people with different styles
is interesting, but having ‘different
expectations’ implies that we may expect
different outcomes from our encounters,
depending on our backgrounds. Should
we adopt the expectations of the minority or
the majority? If I go to France, I try
to adapt myself to the customs of the people
who live there and I certainly don’t expect
them to adapt themselves and their way of
living to me. It would be naïve to think that
they would.
Then it seems that all in the
University should “work and study on a
cooperative basis”. Why? Why should I always
share my insights with my fellow students or
fellow academics? Am I not entitled
to plough a lone furrow in order ultimately
to gain recognition from the wider world for
my brilliance?
So if I were a
part of academic life at Warwick University or
any of the many others which adopt a similar
set of policies, would I be entitled to bring
such nonsense to the attention of the
authorities with a view to asking for change?
Well no, actually. Why? Because I would not
then be demonstrating “a commitment to
upholding the University's policies on
diversity and inclusion”, and so could
ultimately be thrown out if I failed to
recant. I suppose that I could console myself
by thinking that I was following in the
footsteps of Galileo Galilei, but it seems sad
that such Institutions, formerly places where
robust debate could take place, are now places
of group-think where no debate may take place
on certain topics. We seem to be becoming too
anxious to protect people from what until
recently had been regarded as only minor
upsets or annoyances in the way others behave.
We have somehow adopted a highly exaggerated
view of the ‘harm’ which can be caused to
others. But where change is necessary in
society, this most usually comes about by
debate and a degree of discomfort, not by
keeping silent and conforming. I worry
for the future of such a supine generation.
Paul Buckingham March 2017 * "protected characteristics" are defined as: Disability, Gender Reassignment, Marriage and Civil Partnership, Maternity, Paternity and Adoption, Race, Religion or Belief, Sex (Gender Equality) and Sexual Orientation. |
||
|
|