Reporter 23/7/03: Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on a policy for race equality: Notice

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on a policy for race equality: Notice

21 July 2003

The Council have considered the remarks made at the Discussion of the Joint Report on a policy for race equality (Reporter, 2002-03, p. 923) on 27 May 2003 (Reporter, 2002-03, p. 1001).

The Council note that many of the general and specific points raised by subsequent speakers were anticipated by the remarks from Professor M. Schofield.

In his remarks Professor J.-P. Hansen questions the motivation for the race equality policy and suggests that the action plan sheds a suspicion of race discrimination on University employees and students. Professor Hansen has himself referred to the requirements of the relevant legislation, while the Council would like to affirm that the Report makes no suggestion that there is racial discrimination in the University. However, as Professor Schofield has indicated, there is a need to demonstrate that there is not.

Targets have been set for effectiveness in the monitoring required under the legislation. For example, a target was set of 60% for ethnicity data in staff profiles for existing employees by July 2003. Following the recent survey 84% of staff (all categories) have now declared their ethnicity. However, there is no intention to set targets, as Professor Hansen claims, for either admissions or appointments. The Council note that Professor Hansen welcomes positive action in relation to recruitment and concur with his views. Positive action is encouraged under the Race Relations and Sex Discrimination Acts and in relation to gender has been in operation in the University for a number of years, for example in personal and career development opportunities for both women and men. There is no evidence of 'reverse discrimination' in this case and it is difficult to see that there would be any danger of it in relation to race. Positive discrimination and the setting of quotas is illegal, of course.

With regard to the remarks made by Dr D. R. de Lacey and Professor G. R. Evans about the recent data verification exercise, the Council accept that the letter was not sufficiently clear on whether the provision of data by the data subject is mandatory. However, the letter did make clear that the collection of these data was consequent upon the requirements of the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) (which has now adopted the 2001 Census categories, as amended by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE)) and that without individual data the University could not make the full returns required of it. Nor, without such data will the University, alongside the other public authorities covered by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, be able to demonstrate that it does not discriminate on grounds of race. Data on gender have been collected for many years, for example, on appointments. The results have been used to identify problem areas and inform policy and good practice. There is no evidence that this activity has caused either concern or fear to the data subjects and there is no reason to believe that collection of additional data on ethnicity will be any different.

With regard to the remarks made about training the Council is conscious that whatever is done is capable of being criticized either for being too heavy-handed or for failing to ensure participation in the training.

The Council share Dr de Lacey's reservations on the ethnic classifications adopted by both the CRE and HESA. Nevertheless these are the categories the University is required to use both in making returns to HESA and in demonstrating to the CRE (via the HEFCE) that it is monitoring for race equality. However, it is hoped that the advice of the proposed Race Equality Advisory Group, required as part of the University's response to the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, will be valuable in ensuring that neither offence nor insult is caused to people from any ethnic origin in the process of the University fulfilling its duties under the Act.

With regard to Professor Evans's remarks on the duties laid on the University under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, the Council believe that Professor Evans is making false distinctions. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act makes it clear that public authorities have a series of duties under the Act in relation to race equality and it is impossible for those duties to be fulfilled without each member in an organization playing their part.

The Council have agreed to submit a Grace to the Regent House for the approval of the recommendations contained in this Report (Grace 2, p. 1219).

Table of Contents