I agree that role modelling is important, it is the reason I am open with my students, and outspoken in the university, about having bipolar disorder.
The stats for disadvantaged groups accessing higher education are improving but we need more progress with retention and attainment. I teach in a university that was founded to open up access to disadvantaged groups and our open access policy has its own challenges in this area. Our highest drop out rate is of students with mental health challenges.
Just to shift this debate on affirmative inclusion in academia away from the UK or US for a moment. For the last 25 years South Africa has implemented a Black affirmative action programme in historically white universities. This inclusive and assertive trajectory was intended to decentralise and dismantle the structures and hiring practices of historical apartheid so as to end the racist and sexist impact on admissions, academic success and likelihood for promotion. Wider inclusive practices aimed at African diaspora diversity and engagement with African voices on the continent and elsewhere. Many of us involved (as I have been) with adult literacy advocacy and media studies have supported and facilitated such initiatives.
So what has gone wrong? In a nutshell, none of these inclusive strategies went nearly far enough to end colonialism as an ongoing legacy in independent Africa. Just appointing formerly disenfranchised, marginalised or poorer people didn't change European and Western dominant ideologies and historical holds on on the means and methods of learning. In recent decades, worldwide, higher education (especially in the humanities) has been extensively marketised and commercialised, Study is exorbitantly expensive and often leaves graduates with years of debt. As academic departments became more streamlined, the increased workload of teachers and lecturers in a demanding polylinguistic environment and needing to offer remedial education and tutoring to students coming out of township schools meant that academic staff suffered considerable burn-out. The entrenched white culture of administrative staff and older academics was much harder to disrupt than anticipated. Funding remained a conservative fiscal and elitist policy, looking to create Black elites and privilege only those deemed to fit in with historical academic aspirations and cultural norms.
And then we had the emerging history of what is sometimes called "dark academia" which meant that sexual harassment (often carried on over years) had to be addressed and it was found that harassment of female students by lecturers was under-reported and contributed to women feeling unsafe taking certain courses or having to be alone with predatory tutors or supervisors.
In recent years, the fierce and often traumatic struggles by students in movements like Rhodes Must Fall, Fees Must Fall and Decolonize UCT Law have led to ongoing student dissent as they attempt to decentre the middle-class values and whiteness of traditional university pedagogies and syllabi and get free higher education for poorer students.
That’s a very good point about applicants. Positive discrimination is generally unlawful in the UK; you are not allowed to recruitment people solely on the basis of protected characteristics .
Not on a whim, but you absolutely can if it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". I've been getting adverts for jobs at a cyber security and data consultancy firm (based in Edinburgh) which employs only autistic consultants. Presumably combatting the underemployment of autistic people is deemed a legitimate aim and this one company out of many only employing autistic people is a proportionate means of achieving that. My understanding is that increasing diversity in an organisation's workforce is generally considered to be a legitimate aim and, if all else fails, positive discrimination can be a proportionate means of achieving it.
“The new positive action provisions make it clear that employers must not adopt policies or practices designed to routinely favour candidates with a certain protected characteristic, even where there is evidence of under-representation or disadvantage”
De-colonising the curriculum is a key issue in higher education in the UK at present (my research area means I tend to go to higher education conferences on inclusivity). It is now beginning to be treated more seriously but there is a lot of work to be done.
I teach in probably one of the most inclusive fields in academia (health and social care) yet there is still under-representation of black and minority groups, especially in higher positions.
My apologies for posting again but I wish to update my previous post. It appears that disabled people can be recruited using positive discrimination in the UK but a specific disability such as autism cannot be named ie it must be open to all disabled people.
In my place of work anyone who identifies they have a disability within the meaning of the relevant U.K. law, must be interviewed provided they meet the essential criteria for the job.
My apologies for posting again but I wish to update my previous post. It appears that disabled people can be recruited using positive discrimination in the UK but a specific disability such as autism cannot be named ie it must be open to all disabled people.
Someone better tell Auticon that as they only open their consultant positions to people with an autism diagnosis! I wonder whether they're able to do so because they're a social enterprise set up specifically for that purpose and so can claim it's a "genuine occupational requirement"? In any case they employ people in London too, and various other locations around the world, so presumably have the law figured out in the various jurisdictions.
My apologies for posting again but I wish to update my previous post. It appears that disabled people can be recruited using positive discrimination in the UK but a specific disability such as autism cannot be named ie it must be open to all disabled people.
Someone better tell Auticon that as they only open their consultant positions to people with an autism diagnosis! I wonder whether they're able to do so because they're a social enterprise set up specifically for that purpose and so can claim it's a "genuine occupational requirement"? In any case they employ people in London too, and various other locations around the world, so presumably have the law figured out in the various jurisdictions.
I would have thought it's because it's an occupational requirement, rather than "we want to increase diversity so we want this admin assistant to be autistic".
Bit like needing a German speaker for a job translating documents from German.
My apologies for posting again but I wish to update my previous post. It appears that disabled people can be recruited using positive discrimination in the UK but a specific disability such as autism cannot be named ie it must be open to all disabled people.
Someone better tell Auticon that as they only open their consultant positions to people with an autism diagnosis! I wonder whether they're able to do so because they're a social enterprise set up specifically for that purpose and so can claim it's a "genuine occupational requirement"? In any case they employ people in London too, and various other locations around the world, so presumably have the law figured out in the various jurisdictions.
I would have thought it's because it's an occupational requirement, rather than "we want to increase diversity so we want this admin assistant to be autistic".
Bit like needing a German speaker for a job translating documents from German.
I rather like the idea that computers only speak autistic.
Comments
The stats for disadvantaged groups accessing higher education are improving but we need more progress with retention and attainment. I teach in a university that was founded to open up access to disadvantaged groups and our open access policy has its own challenges in this area. Our highest drop out rate is of students with mental health challenges.
So what has gone wrong? In a nutshell, none of these inclusive strategies went nearly far enough to end colonialism as an ongoing legacy in independent Africa. Just appointing formerly disenfranchised, marginalised or poorer people didn't change European and Western dominant ideologies and historical holds on on the means and methods of learning. In recent decades, worldwide, higher education (especially in the humanities) has been extensively marketised and commercialised, Study is exorbitantly expensive and often leaves graduates with years of debt. As academic departments became more streamlined, the increased workload of teachers and lecturers in a demanding polylinguistic environment and needing to offer remedial education and tutoring to students coming out of township schools meant that academic staff suffered considerable burn-out. The entrenched white culture of administrative staff and older academics was much harder to disrupt than anticipated. Funding remained a conservative fiscal and elitist policy, looking to create Black elites and privilege only those deemed to fit in with historical academic aspirations and cultural norms.
And then we had the emerging history of what is sometimes called "dark academia" which meant that sexual harassment (often carried on over years) had to be addressed and it was found that harassment of female students by lecturers was under-reported and contributed to women feeling unsafe taking certain courses or having to be alone with predatory tutors or supervisors.
In recent years, the fierce and often traumatic struggles by students in movements like Rhodes Must Fall, Fees Must Fall and Decolonize UCT Law have led to ongoing student dissent as they attempt to decentre the middle-class values and whiteness of traditional university pedagogies and syllabi and get free higher education for poorer students.
Not on a whim, but you absolutely can if it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". I've been getting adverts for jobs at a cyber security and data consultancy firm (based in Edinburgh) which employs only autistic consultants. Presumably combatting the underemployment of autistic people is deemed a legitimate aim and this one company out of many only employing autistic people is a proportionate means of achieving that. My understanding is that increasing diversity in an organisation's workforce is generally considered to be a legitimate aim and, if all else fails, positive discrimination can be a proportionate means of achieving it.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85014/positive-action-recruitment.pdf
“The new positive action provisions make it clear that employers must not adopt policies or practices designed to routinely favour candidates with a certain protected characteristic, even where there is evidence of under-representation or disadvantage”
I teach in probably one of the most inclusive fields in academia (health and social care) yet there is still under-representation of black and minority groups, especially in higher positions.
Someone better tell Auticon that as they only open their consultant positions to people with an autism diagnosis! I wonder whether they're able to do so because they're a social enterprise set up specifically for that purpose and so can claim it's a "genuine occupational requirement"? In any case they employ people in London too, and various other locations around the world, so presumably have the law figured out in the various jurisdictions.
I would have thought it's because it's an occupational requirement, rather than "we want to increase diversity so we want this admin assistant to be autistic".
Bit like needing a German speaker for a job translating documents from German.
I rather like the idea that computers only speak autistic.