English
中文
University segregation had been making a statement in this and last weeks’ education news headline. It started when Universities UK or UUK released there November guidance entitled, “External speakers in higher education institutions.”
The report lauded itself for presenting important variables considered in university events involving external speakers. The piece promised sage advice and value; it did, but with everything seemingly blown off by its case study number two.
The hypothetical case showcased the scenario of an external speaker who was “invited to talk about his orthodox religious faith.” In line to his talk, the speaker requests the university to segregate event participants according to gender.
To avoid misinterpreting the case study or its complementing guidance, UUK chief executive, Nicola Dandridge proffered the following clarification:
We are not talking about teaching, lectures, the core business of universities.
Unfortunately, it was too late. The news about case study two and the guidance spread like wildfire. It had sparked the ire of students, of personalities – from the PM to the Education Secretary.
Segregation is permitted
When the external speaker requests for seating segregation among men and women participants, how should universities respond? The guidance did not immediately propel the audience to any single response; instead, it permitted the assessment of each crucial variable: the “freedom of speech obligations, as well as discrimination and equality laws…”
At the end, the guidance presented this response:
… if neither women nor men were disadvantaged and a non-segregated seating area were also provided, it might in the specific circumstances of the case be appropriate for the university to agree to the request. – UUK
Despite taking its audience to the thorough process of deliberation and variable assessment, majority of observers can’t take the fact that such request can be given consent.
Opposing voices
The Education Secretary had been one of those figures who have expressed their strong position against the said guidance. While UUK was able to show a scenario by which consent to the speaker’s request is deemed permissible, Mr Michael Gove find allowing such to be incredulous.
His piece consisted of the following:
We should not pander to extremism. Speakers who insist on segregating audiences should not be indulged by educators. This guidance is wrong and harmful. Universities UK should withdraw it immediately. – The Huffington Post UK
A Department for Business, Innovation and Skills spokesman was quick to chime in: forced segregation should never be tolerated by and within universities.
UUK’s last say
In the exchange of points and arguments, one can’t help but wonder: while the case study is hypothetical, are its perceived stakeholders fictitious as well? Regrettably, no; LSE’s Chris Moos and Abhishek Phadnis, who are pronounced atheists, had had the unfortunate experience of “being forcibly segregated at a public event” at an educational institution.
At the light of these discussions, UUK had decided to seek legal advice from senior counsel, Fenella Morris QC. Her provided advice strengthened the appropriated guidance on case study number two. UUK also tirelessly reminded everyone that the guidance “is not prescriptive.”
What university events have you found yourself being intentionally segregated?
