logo
Universities have been infiltrated by 'chilling' diversity culture, warns Scots academic

Universities have been infiltrated by 'chilling' diversity culture, warns Scots academic

Daily Mail​20 hours ago
Universities have been infiltrated by a 'chilling' diversity culture that is stifling research into controversial issues such as puberty blockers, a major report warns.
The review, commissioned by the last Tory government, said academics are being 'bullied, harassed and blocked from career progression' if they dare to question transgender ideology.
It says Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) staff are 'over-reaching' and sometimes even 'generate harassment' against academics.
It warns many EDI departments have been captured by trans activists, and calls for their power to be scaled back.
The 433-page document, the most extensive research of its kind, also records dozens of personal accounts of academics being shut down.
In one example, a paper was rejected by numerous journals because reviewers 'objected to the findings' that puberty blockers may not be safe.
Its writer, Professor Sallie Baxendale, a consultant clinical neuropsychologist, was told her research 'risked stigmatising an already stigmatised group'.
Another academic told how they had been 'ostracised' by a colleague for 'providing balance' during a seminar discussion of puberty blockers.
Robert Gordon University academic Sarah Pedersen said the attacks against her were 'chilling' and were all but ignored by the Scottish government.
The report accuses universities of presiding over 'systemic and institutionalised suppression' of academic freedom, with 'far-reaching chilling effects'.
Titled 'Barriers to research on sex and gender', it is led by Alice Sullivan, Professor of Sociology at the UCL Social Research Institute.
She said: 'Researchers investigating vital issues have been subjected to sustained campaigns of intimidation simply for acknowledging the biological and social importance of sex.
'When fundamental issues cannot be investigated or debated openly, this undermines our academic institutions, it hurts individuals and it compromises the integrity of research.'
The paper is the second instalment of a review originally commissioned by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology under the Tories.
The first instalment, published in March, found that biological sex had been erased from official data in the police, NHS and even the military.
Among the many testimonies is that of Aberdeen-born Professor Kathleen Stock, who was hounded out of her job at Sussex University in 2021 for her gender critical views.
And Professor of communication and media at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, Sarah Pedersen told how she came under attack because of her gender-critical views.
She warned of the 'chilling effect' on the university sector, and said: 'I don't think the Scottish Government has helped in the slightest.
'There has been a dereliction of duty towards things like freedom of speech and academic freedom.
'The statements made by, for example, Nicola Sturgeon about gender-critical women have definitely cast those of us who research the subject as being on the wrong side.'
While she praised Robert Gordon University for supporting her and academic freedom, Prof Pedersen said other universities north of the Border had not been as supportive.
She said: 'This report clearly demonstrates the chilling effect that the cancellation of high-profile gender-critical academics has had on the whole sector.
'My personal experiences of disruption, no-platforming and personal attacks have impacted not just my academic career but also my work for third-sector organisations, who were warned away from working with me.'
She told how she was attending one event at the University of Edinburgh which included prominent feminist author Julie Bindel.
Prof Pedersen said: 'We had an hour-long security briefing, which was one of the most terrifying things I've ever sat through - discussing duck and cover and what to do when we were attacked by the audience.'
The latest report highlights concerns that EDI departments are being used as 'levers for activists pursuing agendas which are not compatible with the truth-seeking mission of universities'.
It says EDI policies have a 'tendency' to 'promote highly contentious theories such as gender-identity theory as unchallengeable fact'.
Universities are also tolerating 'toxic' behaviour by 'a small minority of university staff' who 'de-platform' gender-critical academics, it says.
And it adds: 'The targets of these campaigns have disproportionately been lesbians.'
There are also concerns about 'ethics committees', which 'use their positions to impose particular viewpoints or to block research that they dislike'.
Giving evidence to the report, Professor Stock detailed the long campaign against her including one incident in 2020 when she 'became aware of a Sussex student's social media account in which they referred approvingly to my death'.
The image was of a man with a gun to his dead complete with the words: 'Lay your weary head down Kathleen'. She made a complaint to the university, but was never informed of its outcome.
Prof Stock told how she had been 'subject to a sustained campaign of intimidation from protestors on campus' in September and October 2021 who said they would 'come to campus every day until I was fired or resigned'.
She said: 'Posters were placed in major thoroughfares describing me as a transphobe; stickers saying the same were placed in the bathrooms I used; a manifesto defaming me was distributed throughout my building; an open day was disrupted with a large protest, graffiti and flares, and there were several sub-protests.
'The nature of the protest was widely described in the Press at the time. In tandem with a statement by Sussex branch of UCU that expressed approval of the campaign, I was eventually caused to resign.'
A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'The Scottish Government fully supports individuals' rights to freedom of expression and believes universities to be places where freedom of expression should always be promoted and fostered - but this should be done in a courteous and respectful manner.
'Universities in Scotland are expected to comply with relevant legal requirements, and carefully consider existing Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on freedom of expression for higher education providers in Scotland.'
A UK Government spokesman said: 'We are taking strong action to protect academic freedom and free speech, which are fundamental to our world-leading universities.
'This includes introducing new duties on universities to ensure they are robust in promoting and protecting free speech on campus.
'It also comes alongside the firm steps the Office for Students is already taking, through fines and new guidance, to ensure universities remain beacons of academic freedom.'
A spokesman for Universities UK, which represents vice chancellors, said: 'We agree that universities must protect and defend academic freedom and freedom of speech.
'They are bound to do so by law and, in England, there is a new regulatory approach under the Freedom of Speech Act which is about to come into force.
'These are complex issues. In practice universities are bound by law to protect the free speech of individuals who have very different views on contentious topics.
'They are required both to allow and facilitate protest, and to prevent that protest creating an intimidatory or chilling environment on campus or from preventing staff and students from pursuing their work and studies.
'We will carefully consider this report as part of our work in supporting universities as they navigate these difficult issues.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

High Court orders investigation into MI5 over false evidence
High Court orders investigation into MI5 over false evidence

Telegraph

time13 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

High Court orders investigation into MI5 over false evidence

MI5 could still face contempt of court proceedings over incorrect evidence provided in a bid for an injunction against the BBC, judges at the High Court have said. In a decision on Wednesday, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said that a further investigation should be carried out and that it would be 'premature to reach any conclusions on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any individual'. In 2022, Suella Braverman, the then-attorney general, went to the High Court to stop the BBC airing a programme that would name a man who had allegedly abused two women and was a covert human intelligence source. An injunction was made in April 2022 to prevent the corporation disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as 'X', though Mr Justice Chamberlain said the BBC could still air the programme without identifying him. But at a hearing earlier this year, the London court was told that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false. Lawyers for the BBC told the court the 'low threshold' for launching contempt proceedings against MI5 and a number of individuals for not being fully transparent with the court had been met. On Wednesday, Baroness Carr said that a new investigation should be carried out on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The written witness evidence, now accepted to have been false, said the Security Service had maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying the identities of intelligence sources. However, MI5 disclosed X's status to a BBC reporter, but then claimed it had maintained its policy of neither confirm nor deny. Lawyers on behalf of MI5 apologised earlier this year and carried out two investigations, which concluded the false evidence was given due to a series of mistakes, with no deliberate attempt by any staff member to mislead. 'Serious procedural deficiencies' In Wednesday's 26-page ruling, the three judges said they were not 'satisfied' with the investigations or their conclusions. Baroness Carr, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, also said: 'The investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies. 'Their conclusions cannot presently be relied on.' They added: 'It is regrettable that MI5's explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way – and only following the repeated intervention of the court.' In the programme about X, the BBC alleged the intelligence source was a misogynistic neo-Nazi who attacked his girlfriend, referred to by the pseudonym Beth, with a machete. Beth is bringing related legal action in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, with the judges finding on Wednesday that the specialist tribunal – which investigates allegations against the UK intelligence services – was also misled. Baroness Carr later said: 'Whilst we accept the genuineness of the apologies proffered on behalf of MI5, the fact remains that this case has raised serious issues. 'MI5 gave false evidence to three courts. This was compounded by inadequate attempts to explain the circumstances.' Full and unreserved apology Following the ruling, Sir Ken McCallum, the MI5 director-general said: 'I wish to repeat my full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings. 'We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information with the utmost seriousness. 'Resolving this matter to the court's satisfaction is of the highest priority for MI5 and we are committed to co-operating fully with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office and the court. 'MI5 is now embarked on a programme of work to learn all lessons and implement changes to ensure this does not happen again. This programme will build in external challenge and expertise – with independent assurance to the Home Secretary on our progress. 'MI5's job is to keep the country safe. Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission.' A BBC spokesman said: 'We are pleased this decision has been reached and that the key role of our journalist Daniel De Simone in bringing this to light has been acknowledged by the judges. 'We believe our journalism on this story has always been in the highest public interest.'

Climate change could bring tropical diseases to UK
Climate change could bring tropical diseases to UK

The Independent

time14 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Climate change could bring tropical diseases to UK

Climate change is driving tropical infectious diseases like dengue and West Nile Virus northwards into Europe as pathogens thrive in hotter, more humid conditions, with fears the danger could spread to the UK. Researchers project a potential five-fold increase in chikungunya and dengue outbreaks by 2060, with 2024 dengue cases in Europe already surpassing the cumulative total of the previous 15 years. The spread is linked to the Asian tiger mosquito, a vector for dengue, chikungunya, and Zika, which is now established in several European countries including France, Germany, and Spain. Beyond vector-borne diseases, altered climate conditions, such as floods, also increase the risk of waterborne illnesses by disrupting water treatment and distribution. Experts recommend reducing greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing surveillance, controlling mosquito and tick populations, increasing vaccinations, and educating the public to manage these growing health threats.

Ministers are fretting about Britain's falling birthrate. Here's why it could be a good thing
Ministers are fretting about Britain's falling birthrate. Here's why it could be a good thing

The Guardian

time14 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Ministers are fretting about Britain's falling birthrate. Here's why it could be a good thing

Back in the early 1970s when he was lead singer with the Faces, few of his fans would have expected Rod Stewart to be still belting out Maggie May at Glastonbury more than half a century later. Long gone are the days when rock stars hoped to die before they got old. Instead, 80-year-old rock stars symbolise the fact that Britain and other developed economies have ageing populations. Women are having children later in life and having fewer of them. Politicians are starting to fret about the prospect of a decreasing number of people of working age supporting an ever-increasing number of pensioners. Just this week, the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, said the falling birthrate had 'worrying repercussions' and that she hoped to be able to make it easier for women to have children. This might seem a curious concern given that the UK's population has risen from fewer than 60 million at the turn of the millennium to 67.2 million by 2022 and is expected to rise by another 5 million by 2032. Yet the fertility rate in England and Wales – the number of live births per woman – is currently 1.44, the lowest since records began in 1938 and well below the 2.1 level consistent with a stable population. If that trend continues and net migration is reduced, the number of people in the UK will eventually start to decline. So much is obvious. Less clear is what, if anything, policymakers should do to raise fertility rates. The answer may well be nothing. A falling population is not a disaster. It might even be a good thing. Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orbán, would certainly disagree with that conclusion. So would France's president, Emmanuel Macron, and Italy's prime minister, Giorgia Meloni. Italy has a tax-free allowance – a 'baby bonus' – for women having children. Macron has a plan for France's demographic rearmament. In 2019, Hungary offered women a €30,000 (£26,000) interest-free loan that would be non-repayable in the event that they had three or more children. The chances of the UK matching that level of generosity given the strains on the public finances are infinitesimally small. Yet the evidence from countries that have already hit the panic button over declining populations is not encouraging. Fertility rates in Italy, France and Hungary remain well below 2.1 despite the fiscal inducements. And that's because the factors that are persuading women to delay having children – or not have children at all – are stronger than government tax breaks or interest-free loans. Make no mistake, these are welcome changes. Women are better educated than they have ever been. More of them go to university, so have the possibility of securing interesting and well-paid jobs. It is not surprising that for many of them career progression takes precedence over childbirth in their 20s. The days when households were financially dependent on one male breadwinner are over – and a good thing too. It is also tough for women who do want to start a family at a younger age. Rising house prices have resulted in home ownership rates among 25- to 34-year-olds declining from 59% to 39% since 2000. Rents have also increased sharply. Given all this, it is hard to see much future for pronatalist policies in the UK. The reality is that the demographic makeup of Britain will change over the coming decades as people live longer and fertility rates remain well below 2.1. If net migration is below the levels of recent years, the Office for Budget Responsibility thinks the population could be 1.2 million lower in 2072 than it was in 2022. Is this really so much of a problem? The economist David Miles – one of those responsible for putting together the OBR's economic and fiscal forecasts – says not. In a recent paper, he argues that the catastrophising about shrinking populations is 'largely bunkum'. In part, that's because the global population is expected to continue growing for some decades to come, putting added pressure on the environment and speeding up climate breakdown. It makes little sense to adopt policies designed to increase fertility rates when the UK is an overcrowded island in an overpopulated world. But it is also the case that the combination of an ageing and gently falling population could result in living standards rising. Older people tend to save more and that means the ratio of capital to worker will increase. There will, in other words, be fewer workers but they could well be more productive. Measured by gross domestic product, the economy would be getting smaller, but GDP per head – a much better measure of wellbeing – would be increasing. There would be less congestion on the roads, less pressure on public services and less competition for housing. Japan already has an ageing and shrinking population and seems to be coping just fine. To be sure, there will still need to be policy changes in Britain. If there are going to be fewer young people, it is bad for the economy as well as a waste of individual potential for them not to be working. To that extent, the motivation behind the government's botched welfare reforms makes sense. Childcare needs to be more affordable and changes to the pension age might also be required to extend the working lives of those able to do so. But it is not inevitable that a falling population would be bad for the economy. It would certainly be good for the planet. Larry Elliott is a Guardian columnist

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store