CEFA

Published below are selected meeting minutes from the University and College Union (UCU) LGBT+ Committee for the academic year 2021-22. Copies of minutes are sent to every UCU National Executive Committee (NEC) member and are not marked confidential. Any UCU member wishing to examine a copy for themselves can email a NEC representative to request a copy. We believe these are the minutes reported in ‘The Times’ on August 10th 2022 (archived here).

We are sharing these minutes in full as they demonstrate the deliberate targeting of ‘gender critical’ academics by a committee within our own union. Whilst important work is carried out by this committee, the meeting minutes detail plans to campaign against UCU members and academics who do not share their beliefs about ‘gender self-ID’.

Women as a sex class and ‘gender critical beliefs’ (i.e. that sex is immutable), are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Beliefs about ‘gender identity’ or a lack of belief in either position are also protected. Despite this, the UCU committee planned to target staff in universities who take a gender critical position, via union branches and disciplinary processes. We have highlighted the most crucial extracts outlining these plans.

UCU is the only union with bargaining power for academic pay and conditions. We want and need a functioning union which represents all higher and further education staff (as per our open letter to Jo Grady). As an academic union, they should protect academic “freedoms to conduct research, teach, speak, and publish without interference or penalty”, not punish those who disagree. These are freedoms which are also protected in law.

The higher education sector is currently under immense pressure, as an ever more pervasive business model is undermining the values which have drawn many of us into academia in the first place. If we do not act as a sector to protect those values, others will seek to do it for us, and we may not like the end result.

We have redacted all names, leaving some job roles for clarity. We have highlighted the most crucial extracts from these minutes. For context, you can find full copies of the anonymised minutes here: Friday 17th September 2021 and Friday 21st January 2022.

Meeting (1): Friday 17th September 2021
The committee discuss two motions (archived here and here) that they wish to support. In the UCU, motions that are passed at Congress (i.e. an AGM) become union policy. The committee is therefore advocating for the content of these motions to become union policy. The committee agrees to gather information on gender critical staff in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) departments.

Present: Chair of the committee [Chair]; an ‘Equality Support Official’; an ‘Equality Administrator’; and committee members [CM1 – 8].

[…]

Two motions were submitted to NEC pertaining to LGBT+. They were proposed by [redacted] and seconded by [Chair]. It was NOTED that the first motion was on Challenging LGBT+ Exclusion which looks at a report about LGBT+ exclusion in HE. The motion was passed. It was NOTED that the resolve included, in solidarity with trans and non-binary members, for NEC members to use pronouns in zoom meetings and to encourage members to use pronouns in online meetings and email signatures.

The second motion related to the Maya Forstater employment tribunal and appeal case.¹ The motion resolved in solidarity with trans members to resolve to reinstate UCU’s position of trans inclusion and increase efforts to provide practical support and policy guidance to equality reps and trans members in challenging the act of harassment and discrimination. 

It was AGREED that [Chair] will forward the full motions for circulation to the committee. LGBT+ issues are not discussed at branch meetings and UCU nationally can do more to ensure that LGBT+ issues are raised at meetings and support LGBT+ members. [Chair] gave an example of recently being invited to speak at Northumbria AGM. LGBT+MSC members can discuss what actions can be taken to improve visibility. It was NOTED that one member felt strongly that UCU nationally needs to ally and champion LGBT+ rights to improve visibility.

[Chair] had submitted a motion to HEC on Making HE safe for trans and non-binary staff and students.² This motion was not heard due to lack of time. [Chair] had written this motion to address reports of misinformation, some universities disaffiliating themselves from Stonewall, founding of gender critical research network specifically at one institution and transphobic violence in UK. The motion would have sent a message of support to HEC, Open University staff and students campaigning against the gender critical network and issued a strong statement in support of trans members. This motion may be re-submitted to HEC in future. It was NOTED that if members want any motions taken to HEC or FEC they should email [Chair] or [CM7]. 

It was AGREED³ to send an email to LGBT+ members to find out how many universities have disaffiliated from Stonewall. It was AGREED to send the following questions:
• Is your institution affiliated to a diversity champion scheme and has that affiliation changed in the last two years?
• Is your institution affiliated to any other LGBT organisations or accreditation schemes?
• To get more information a sentence could be added “do you have any further comments”.
• To get information about gender critical equality, diversity & inclusion consultants being employed in HR departments of various institutions a question can be included – “Are you aware of your institution employing EDI consultants in the sector and if so which ones”.

The last question is to get information about how many HR and senior HR staff/consultants are gender critical and then to inform branches, so that they are aware of any problems which may arise in a particular branch. Some of the EDI consultants are transphobes and prominent gender critical activists. It was NOTED that [Chair] and [Vice Chair] will raise the issue of gender critical consultants being employed in certain institutions, at the next Equality Committee.⁴ It was AGREED to contact Stonewall to find out if they would give out information about the number of disaffiliations from HE and FE sector

Meeting (2): Friday 21st January, 2022
The following meeting of the committee contains an update on the plan to identify gender critical staff in universities. 

3.1           At the last meeting it was agreed to send out a survey as some institutions are employing gender critical consultants to conduct equality work.⁵

3.2           It had been agreed to raise the issue of gender critical consultants being employed in certain institutions at the Equality Committee and to find out if a broader survey could be carried out. This idea was not taken forward by the Equality Committee.

3.3           [Equality Support] outlined a few broad areas for a survey which would go out to all LGBT+ members. They were:
·      Monitoring LGBT+ visibility.
·      Examples of LGBT+ inclusion in curriculum.
·     International work would look at whether LGBT+ inclusion is part of international recruitment, whether LGBT+ inclusion is part of induction of overseas students and international relations with universities in different countries.
·      Is LGBT+ inclusion part of equality management initiatives and whether consultants brought into institutions are or are not LGBT+ inclusive?⁶
·      Does the institution liaise with LGBT+ organisations as there is concern that some institutions are not engaging with Stonewall?

3.4           The aim of the survey would be to get a snapshot of LGBT+ inclusion in various institutions, as well as whether equality consultants being employed who are not LGBT+ inclusive.⁷

3.5           Suggestions included:
·      asking about the visibility of LGBT+ presence in senior management teams and their impact, as some institutions breaking links from Stonewall are actually LGBT staff with equality remit in senior management roles.⁸
·      the survey should be structured so that many questions can be answered quickly but other ones require more in-depth response. The in-depth ones could be taken to the branch equality officer/s.
·      It was AGREED that [Equality Officer] will produce the questions for the survey and circulate them to LGBT+MSC. The survey will then be circulated. It was AGREED any results from the survey will be an agenda item at the next meeting.

Meeting (2): Friday 21st January, 2022
This final section is from the same meeting on the 21st January. Unusually for a committee meeting of this kind, the General Secretary of the union attends to confirm her support for the work of the committee. This demonstrates that the witch-hunting and discriminatory activities detailed in the rest of the minutes are supported from the very top of the union.

12.1           [VC] introduced [General Secretary] and [redacted].

12.2           [General Secretary] outlined that the reason for attending the meeting was to get feedback from LGBT+MSC around UCU’s work on the position of trans inclusion and education beyond UCU’s membership. The work will involve campaigning, organising and education of liberation work within UCU.

12.3           In late 2021 the Sussex branch had a particularly difficult period because the branch committee supported trans inclusion in an issue around equality and academic freedom.⁹

12.4           The government has been involved in a number of culture wars against universities around freedom of speech and conflating that with what academic freedom could and should mean. Academic freedom has been used as a cover to allow space for discriminatory conversation to open up and become legitimate.¹⁰ National UCU supported the Sussex branch.

12.5           UCU needs to ensure that branches are supported and have something prepared for them to support trans inclusion whilst dealing with culture wars and academic freedom. The aim is to develop campaigning material and educational videos which can be aimed at the general public, accompanied with a motion which every branch can pass to align with the democratic process of UCU.

12.6           Work also needs to be continued around educating people to show that academic freedom is not at odds with UCU’s inclusion and liberation work.

12.7           [General Secretary] and [Head of Equality] met with the Sussex branch late last year and asked them what mechanisms could have been in place which would have benefitted them. This situation is likely to arise again and therefore it is important to have mechanisms in place to ensure that the situation which Sussex branch went through is not repeated.

12.8           The organising work is important to ensure that branches understand UCU’s national position.

12.9           [General Secretary] also suggested putting on an event which showcases the contributions of LGBT+ UCU members particularly the trans and non-binary members.

12.10           UCU already has a strong trans inclusion policy. There are various strands to this work including campaigning, educational side, organising and how to better articulate why there are severe limitations to how the legal framework works. UCU needs to raise the general awareness that as part of academic freedom some things which are being said are so objectionable. The aim is to have a suite of activities and meet people where they are to get them on board in this journey.

12.11           Comments from LGBT+MSC

12.12           Some branches have a split of transphobic and non-transphobic members¹¹ and therefore provision of resources for branches in terms of support, guidance or training would be beneficial when these sorts of attacks take place.

12.13           In local branches many LGBT+ members do not feel supported, even though national UCU is supportive of LGBT+ members.

12.14           Besides being more assertive in challenging transphobic attitudes, UCU also needs to develop a campaign that brings LGBT+ community together.

12.15           Supporting branches in combatting transphobia is important through education but there are a small core of people who are so entrenched in their views and UCU needs to address this issue, as they put forward extremely exclusionary ideology. It is important to look at ways of tackling these transphobes as they put forward hostile views which make campuses very unsafe places for trans people.¹²

12.16           The campaign to disaffiliate from Stonewall, has led many institutions to create their own bespoke internal review LGBT+ strategy groups which can have exclusionary policies.

12.17           UCU can look at its own internal processes such as Rule 13, whereby certain members have tried to push through exclusionary processes.¹³

12.18           Management in institutions can use academic freedom and transphobia to erode solidarity and destabilise branches, as well as erode solidarity between staff and students.

12.19           It was NOTED that [General Secretary] and Jenny Sherrard [Head of Equality] will put together an action plan from the suggestions put forward by LGBT+MSC into the different strands of educating, organising, campaigning and political work. There is a serious and urgent need to provide support for branches but also tackle the wider culture war being waged by the present government as well as the exclusionary entrenched ideology of a small core of transphobes in institutions and unions.¹⁴

1. Forstater vs CGD Europe relates to Maya Forstater’s employment tribunal, which concluded in July 2022 (remedies concluded in June 2023). Following an earlier preliminary hearing (December 2019), an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) judgement in June 2021 found that ‘gender critical’ beliefs were protected under the Equality Act. This confirmed that it is illegal to discriminate against someone for holding gender critical beliefs. The later hearing found that Maya Forstater had been discriminated against by her employer for her gender critical beliefs (July 2022). ↩︎
2. Here the chair discusses another motion. It is explicit that the motivation behind this motion is to stifle ‘gender critical’ thinking and activity within academia. Stonewall is a prominent promoter of Self ID, and the employer scheme under discussion here awards points to organisations who actively promote these ideas and discourage gender critical thinking. In September 2021, the UCL academic board voted to leave Stonewall, and some other universities have also disaffiliated. The other explicit target is the Open University Gender Critical Research Network, established in June 2021. It is clearly stated that one aim of the motion is to support the campaign to shut down this research network, which included an open letter signed by 350+ OU staff and students. This is an attempt to get the union to institute a formal policy to limit the academic freedom of their own members, as well as for all staff and students to hold and express the legally protected belief that sex exists. ↩︎
3. In this section the committee agree to gather information on gender critical staff in universities working in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI). The purpose of gathering this information is to ‘inform branches’ (the UCU organisers within each institution) and to share this information with another UCU committee (the Equality Committee). These staff have legally protected beliefs. ↩︎
4. Here the LGBT+ committee agree to escalate the issue of gender critical EDI consultants to another UCU committee. The issue being raised here is that there are people employed in universities who have beliefs with which the committee do not agree. It is clear that the committee views the employment of people with gender critical views as illegitimate. The only reason to raise this issue with another committee would be to try and get people with these views removed from their jobs or make it harder for people with these views to find employment. It is worth remembering here that the point of a union is to support and defend the employment rights of their members, not to actively seek to limit their employment opportunities. ↩︎
5. In this section the committee continues to develop the work identifying gender critical staff in universities. The Equalities Committee has rejected their idea, but the LGBT+ committee continue with the survey. ↩︎
6. Here the committee are trying to establish if EDI deparatments allow for viewpoint diversity or if they only employ people who agree with the genderist position of the committee. ↩︎
7. This confirms that the committee are using this survey to identify and target those with gender critical beliefs. “Not LGBT+ inclusive” is used as a euphemism for gender critical, as evidenced by the explicit motivation laid out in the previous minutes. ↩︎
8. Note here that the committee acknowledge that not all lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans-identified people agree with their position. Some of the senior managers who have disaffiliated from Stonewall are lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans-identified themselves, making it explicit that there is not an clearcut association between pro-Stonewall/Self ID = pro-LGBT. Elsewhere the committee consistently equate gender critical beliefs/opposition to Self ID with being being transphobic and hostile to lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans-identified people. This comment makes it clear that the committee is interested in targeting people who disagree on gender identity, not people who are hostile to lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans-identified people. ↩︎
9. This refers to the case of Kathleen Stock, a professor in philosophy at Sussex University. Following harassment by students and colleagues for her gender critical beliefs, Prof. Stock resigned in October 2021. The UCU branch released a statement supporting her harassers. ↩︎
10. Note here that a legitimate discussion of gender critical perspectives is framed as objectionable. ↩︎
11. Note that staff who do not agree with Self ID or take gender critical positions are framed here as ‘transphobic’. The judgment in Jo Phoenix’s employment tribunal, this framing of gender critical beliefs as inherently transphobic was characterised as contributing to a hostile work environment for Professor Phoenix. ↩︎
12. The claim is repeated here that gender critical beliefs are inherently harmful and discriminatory. ↩︎
13. This is a threat to use disciplinary processes against those who oppose Self ID or have gender critical beliefs. ↩︎
14. Here the general secretary confirms intent to ‘tackle’ the protected beliefs of union members and help their union branches organise to undermine them. ↩︎