Lawyers and campaigners say that a university training scheme on gender identity is “totalitarian and unlawful”.
The latest row centres on a scheme called Athena Swan that is offered by Advance HE, formerly the Higher Education Academy, a charity that advises education institutions.
The organisation has a pivotal role in financing academics because those bidding for funds from UK Research and Innovation must complete an equality and diversity statement that is likely to have been compiled under its advice.
Concerns about the programme mirror those about advice on gender identity provided to businesses and public bodies by Stonewall.
In a letter to The Times on Wednesday, Selina Todd, a professor of modern history at Oxford University, said that Advance HE had “considerable clout” and said that it “promotes a controversial view of sex and gender”.
Advertisement
Todd was writing in support of Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor, who last week quit her post at the University of Sussex after allegations that she had been forced out by militant students who opposed her views on gender.
Naomi Cunningham, a barrister who specialises in discrimination and gender claims, says that the Advance HE programme could be challenged in the courts. “I think this is pretty clearly unlawful,” adding that it constituted “direct discrimination on grounds of philosophical belief,” and therefore would breach equality legislation.
She said that it “represents a pretty totalitarian attempt to entrench gender identity beliefs at the heart of all academic endeavour”.
Maya Forstater, a tax analyst who won a court victory over a think tank that had sacked her for expressing gender-critical views, also criticised the Advance HE programme. Forstater, who has launched a campaign group called Sex Matters, said that it could also breach data protection legislation.
A spokesman for Advance HE said: “Seeking accreditation against the UK Athena Swan Charter is entirely voluntary and not prescriptive. It is no longer linked to funding . . . We strongly advocate open, constructive debate both within and between HE institutions on these challenging issues.”
