On Linked In I look at popular jargon and unpack it through an Equality Act compliance lens.
A while ago, I looked at “Going Beyond the Law” in Equality Policy:
What is this from a DEI point of view?
I’ve observed a recurring theme among hashtag#DEI advocates: the idea of “going beyond the law.” It’s an ambitious notion—encouraging organisations to be bolder and more generous in improving outcomes for underrepresented groups. On the surface, it’s inspiring. Why settle for the baseline when you can do more?
Yet, this approach also suggests that the law is outdated and that we shouldn’t wait for Parliament to catch up. Historically, good employers have always had the option to exceed legal requirements, choosing fairness and inclusivity even before the law demanded it. However, adopting this mindset without careful consideration can create significant problems.
Case in Point: Essex University and the Reindorf Report
Take the situation at Essex University, which culminated in the 2021 Reindorf Report
For context, the Reindorf Report was commissioned after two external speakers were disinvited following complaints from trans activists over their alleged gender-critical beliefs. Written by an independent discrimination barrister, the report explored the legal and regulatory frameworks governing conflicts between trans activists and gender-critical feminists.
While primarily focused on universities and academic freedom, the report highlights broader lessons about balancing conflicting rights, the risk of indirect sex discrimination, thresholds for unlawful harassment, and the role of advocacy organisations like Stonewall.
In response, a group of academics and students—including members of the university’s law school and human rights experts—authored an open letter to the Vice Chancellor https://lnkd.in/dTTdKsvq. It asserted: “It is entirely appropriate for an academic institution to set an example to wider society by going above and beyond the baseline requirement for rights protection.”
What is this from EA compliance point of view?
Recognising the Conflict of Rights
The rights of the disinvited speakers, as well as those of other staff and students (particularly women with gender-critical beliefs), were entirely absent from the letter. This lack of recognition is particularly shocking given the Reindorf Report’s context, which included incidents like a flyer depicting a cartoon character with a gun, captioned: “SHUT THE F** UP, TERF.”*
Implications for DEI Practices and practitioners:
The recent Thames Valley police case offers a stark reminder of these complexities. A tribunal ruled that a desire to promote underrepresented groups to senior management by bypassing a competitive selection process resulted in unlawfully discrimination against white potential candidates.
When policy proposals encourage us to “go beyond the law,” we must tread carefully. Going beyond it without due consideration of competing rights is no-no.