¡°Excessive bureaucracy¡± that has built up around academic processes has been used to stifle research and discussion on sex and gender issues, according to a new report.

Practitioners of equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives are ¡°prone to suggesting additional bureaucratic mechanisms¡± that ¡°move control away from academics¡±, claims the paper, written by UCL professor of sociology Alice Sullivan.

Sullivan was commissioned by the former Conservative government to look into the barriers to research on sex and gender in February 2024.

The subsequent report, published on 2 July, says that universities have ¡°taken an extreme and contentious stance on sex and gender without necessarily recognising that this is the implication of a range of organisational policies and practices¡±.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

It is ¡°widely acknowledged¡±, the report says, that universities have become increasingly bureaucratic, infringing on staff¡¯s time and resources.?

¡°Increased bureaucracy reduces academic autonomy and academic freedom both in general and in the specific case of sex and gender. Excessive bureaucracy provides levers for activist influence,¡± the report, which received submissions from 130 academics, says.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Sullivan said that gender-critical academics ¨C those who believe sex is determined by biology and is distinct from gender identity ¨C have been ¡°subjected to sustained campaigns of intimidation¡±.?

¡°Excessive and cumbersome bureaucratic processes have exacerbated the problem by providing levers for activists to exert influence. Academic institutions need to examine their policies and processes carefully to avoid these unintended outcomes,¡± she said.

The report comes as universities review their inclusion policies?for trans staff and students ¨C?including what facilities they are able to use?¨C following a?major ruling by the Supreme Court.

Sullivan further says that proposals to introduce a weighting towards people, culture and environment in the Research Excellence Framework (REF) ¡°pose risks to science and scholarship¡±, and are likely to ¡°disincentivise universities from scaling back EDI activities even where these have no proven benefit¡±. These proposals should be abandoned, she recommends in the paper.?

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

The ¡°expansion and politicisation of ethics committees poses serious risks¡± to research, the report adds, saying that academics have had their research ¡°blocked or delayed by ethics committees imposing criteria which, in our view, go beyond their proper remit¡±.

It further recommends that universities actively seek to ensure that both gender-critical and gender-identity speakers are enabled to speak on campus. But again, it said that institutional bureaucracy has blocked speakers from attending, as risk assessments and equalities impact assessments of gender-critical speakers ¡°can effectively punish the speaker for the fact that they have previously been no-platformed or deemed ¡®controversial¡¯¡±.

Reducing the bureaucracy around events would ¡°return autonomy to academics and students organising events¡±.

The report further recommends:?

• Universities should ¡°acknowledge the reality of bullying and harassment by internal activists¡±, and staff and students taking part in ¡°freedom-restricting harassment¡± should face consequences
• Institutions should develop students¡¯ ability to deal with robust disagreement, rather than treat disagreement as ¡°a threat¡±. Consequently, managers should ¡°avoid directing staff or students to mental health support resources in response to the presence of views with which they disagree¡±
• Institutional policies and training should be reformed to ensure legal compliance with equality law and maintain ¡°institutional neutrality¡± on contested political issues.

Michael Biggs, associate professor of sociology at the University of Oxford whose paper was rejected after an editor branded him?¡°³Ù°ù²¹²Ô²õ±è³ó´Ç²ú¾±³¦¡±, said the report ¡°reveals the unprecedented level of censorship and intimidation that operates within British universities¡±.?

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

¡°Anyone who questions the fashionable American doctrine on gender is met with relentless bullying from a dominant minority of students, academics and administrators,¡± he said.

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com