Legal Frameworks for Diversity in UK Universities

Introduction

In the UK among the other countries across the world, the need to increase access to education to all population groups has been well emphasised. Just like other countries, UK is a diverse community, which underscores the need for policy to promote value for diversity. The need to celebrate diversity has seen the review of legislation to support diversity in all settings in the country. This paper considers the extent to which the Equality Act 2010 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 support diversity in universities. The paper also examines the wider benefits and limitations of promoting diversity in universities using the Equality Act 2010 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, providing insights that are crucial for UK dissertation help. Further, the paper discusses the current situation relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students and evaluates strategies that can be used to combat prejudice and create more inclusive setting.

Wider benefits and limitations

The Equality Act 2010 combines nine legislations into one act that seeks to combat inequality and discrimination. The Act introduces nine protected characteristics namely disability, age, marriage and civil partnership, gender reassignment, religion and belief, race, sexual orientation, sex and pregnancy and maternity (Legislation.gov.uk, 2015). The protected characteristics specifically marriage and civil partnership and sexual orientation seek to promote value for diversity for LGBT students. The act dictates that institutions of higher learning ensure all LGBT students or the children LGBT parents are not discriminated (Warwickshire County Council, 2018). Schools should ensure there are no practices that could result in less favourable and unfair treatment of LGBT students. The act legally requires universities to include lessons on the nature of marriage in sex education, which should not leave out the facts about same sex couple form of marriage (Legislation.gov.uk, 2015). The act also holds that teaching about marriage should be done in a respectful, reasonable, balanced, and sensitive way, which implies that teachers should be professionally trained to better understanding of all sexual orientations including the LGBT identities.

The Marriage (Same Sex Couple) Act 2013 is more related to the Equality Act 2010 but it expounds on four protected characteristics namely sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, gender reassignment, and religion or belief (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2017). Just as the Equality Act 2010, this act implicates that schools incorporate teachings about the nature of marriage in sex education which should be done in a respectful, sensitive, and reasonable way. In addition, the act holds that no school or teacher should endorse or support marriage between same sex couples and that teaching should be factual.

The Equality Act 2010 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 have been beneficial in promoting inclusion of LGBT students in universities. According to Barker et al. (2012), the legalisation of delivering on nature of marriage in sex education has provided LGBT students a safe place to openly express their identity. Prior to legalisation of teaching on the nature of marriage, students and the teaching staff help incorrect assumptins and a lack of understanding of LGBT identities which led to discrimination of LGBT students when accessing services within the university; for example, counselling services for LGBT students were not available (Ward et al.,, 2012). Prior to the introduction of the Equality Act 2010, sports and extra-curricular activities were categorised for two sexes resulting in exclusion of trans students (Lytle et al., 2014). However, the introduction of the Equality Act 2010 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 has seen the inclusion of LGBT students in sports and extra-curricular activities. Following the introduction of Equality Act 2010 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 20103, incidents of homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic bullying are decreasing (Rivers, 2017), which implies that LGBT students are more welcome and safe in universities. On the other hand, Wright and Smith (2013) write that Equality Act 2010 led to the freedom of LGBT teachers to open up on their identity in that prior to the act they feared losing their jobs upon opening up. Prior to the Equality Act 2010, universities had gendered facilities which were a direct act of discriminating LGBT students. However, Krum et al. (2013) state that following the launch of the Equality Act 2010 and the action plans for universities, there has been introduction of gender neutral facilities such as bathrooms so that LGBT students feel as welcome as the heterogenic students. Further, Klein, and Dudley (2014) state that the both the Equality Act 2010, and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, have resulted in an improvement of academic performance for LBGT students. This owes to the fact that LGBT students face less stigma and social exclusion thus building their confidences and promoting their psychological wellbeing.

Despite the increased emphasis on inclusion of LGBT students in education, the Equality Act 2010 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 have their limitations in promoting inclusion for LGBT students. According to Gates (2015), nothing in the Equality Act 2010 and Marriage (Same Sex Couple) Act 2013 overrules the rights of religiously inclined schools continue teaching about marriage based on their religious doctrines. As a result, schools and teachers teach about marriage in a way that reflects their religious ethos, which considerably discriminates against LGBT students. In the same vein, Quaye and Harper (2014) write that nothing in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 limits the rights of teachers to hold their personal philosophical or religious beliefs on marriage between same sex persons, which results in bias when teaching on the nature of marriage. A study by the Government Equalities Office (2018) reveal that LGBT students continue to experience negative reactions such as verbal harassment, disclosing of identity without permission, and discussions on sexual orientation in a disrespectful way. These results means that despite the emphasis on inclusion of LGBT persons by the Equality Act 2010 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, there is more to be done at the school level for LGBT students to be fully valued and respected in schools. A report by Strayhorn (2018) reveals that LGBT students remain among the most marginalised and stigmatised in universities, which points to the deficiencies of the Equality Act in serving its purpose. Finally, Hafford-Letchfield et al. (2016) state that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 subjects teachers to professional requirements when delivering on sex education. However, the authors note that not all teachers have been equipped with inclusive language to cover LGBT topics accurately and sensitively while avoiding gender stereotyping. Therefore, the government still has more to do in ensuring the requirements in the inclusive legislation are implemented in all universities to the benefits of the LGBT students.

Current situation and strategies to combat prejudice and create more inclusive settings

Issues around discrimination against LGBT students in institutions of higher education have been well researched over the last years. Some of these reports portray universities as a safe place for LGBT students while other reports highlight ways in which universities continue to discriminate against LGBT students. According to Grimwood (2017), universities have been active in developing policies for promoting inclusion of LGBT students but the implementation and enforcement of such policies is significantly lacking resulting to a negative experience of LGBT students in universities. This section considers the experience of LGBT students in universities and ways to promote inclusive practice in favour of LGBT students.

A study conducted by Stonewall in 2018, as cited by Bachmann and Gooch (2018), on the experience of LGBT students in universities reveal that about 42% of LGBT student hide their identity in fear of discrimination. The report also reveals that 36% of LGBT students face negative conduct and comments from university staff owing to their identity. The study also reveals that 60% of LGBT students are a target of negative conduct and comments from heterogenic students. Further, the study shows that 22% of LGBT students do not report incidents of homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic bullying to the university staff because the incidents are too often. Another study conducted by the National Union of Students (2018) among 4000 LGBT students in 80 institution of higher education in UK reveals that only 21% of LGBT students feel completely safe in campus. In addition, the study establishes that 51% of LGBT students have seriously considering dropping out of their course in that they felt they did not fit in. Moreover, the study reveals that only 39% of LGBT students feel that their needs are incorporated in the curriculum. The study of this study concurs to those of Linley et al. (2016) who reveal that heterosexual students are more positive about student services and support in universities as compared to LGBT students. However, the results of a study conducted by Mobley and Johnson (2015) show that student unions are more proactive in fighting for the rights of LGBT students thus have promoted inclusive practices for LGBT students in universities. In agreement, Brooks et al. (2015) state that LGBT societies in higher learning institutions have promoted the acceptance of LGBT identities making their stay in universities more bearable.

Literature provides different strategies that can be used to combat prejudice and create more inclusive setting for LGBT students. According to Mitchell (2014), universities should go beyond developing policies for promoting inclusion of LGBT students and ensure such policies are implemented and enforced for their efficiency to be realised. In support, Marston (2015) states that universities’ discrimination, harassment, and bullying policies should be explicitly inclusive of gender identity and sexual orientation for both students and teachers. Universities should also proactively communicate the routes for reporting discrimination and encourage reporting of incidences of bullying (Mitchelle et al., 2014). To support LGBT students to even better report homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic bullying, universities should provide multiple points of contact involving even the student representatives so that LGBT students have more options to make a choice. In regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance on sex and relationship education, universities should organise training for teachers so that delivering on the nature of marriage can be done more professionally and in a way sensitive to the rights of LGBT students. Universities also owe to regularly investigate and positively respond to concerns of LGBT students in an attempt of creating a safer place for these student group (Pearce, 2015). Further, universities should teach all staff directly involved with students on the concept of anti-LGBT discrimination, harassment, and bullying and encourage actions to promote inclusion of LGBT students; this should include language sensitivity (Mitchell, 2014). In partnership with LGBT societies, universities should run anti-bullying campaigns seeking to combat homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia bullying in campus (Formby, 2015). Universities should also reduce or eliminate single-gender activities in that they separate LGBT students from heterosexual students (Mitchell, 2014). The authors note that in preparing school activities, universities should where possible include LGBT students in groups that correspond to their preferred gender identity. Finally, universities should encourage LGBT students to join LGBT societies such that their concerns and needs can be heard and passed to the management for action. If LGBT students fail to join student unions, their voice is weak thus the management may not actively respond to their concerns (Pearce, 2015).

Conclusion

The aim of this paper was to explore the extent to which legislation supports diversity in educational settings. The paper also sought to discuss the current situation of LGBT students in institutions of higher education and provide strategies that could combat prejudice against LGBT students. The Equality Act 2010 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 advocate for the rights of LGBT people. These acts implicate that schools should include marriage between same sex couples when teaching on the nature of marriage. The acts also require universities to develop policies on anti-LGBT discrimination in order to create a safe place for LGBT students. The acts have seen a decrease in the incidents of homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic bullying in universities. However, incidents of discrimination against LGBT students are reported showing the acts have not been able to fully advocate for the inclusion of LGBT students. For a more inclusive environment, universities should reinforce their anti-LGBT discrimination policies, encourage LGBT students to joint respective student unions, and actively punish those that harass and discriminate LGBT students, and train the entire staff of how to interact with students in a way sensitive to the rights of LGBT students.

References

Bachmann, C.L. & Gooch, B. (2018). LGBT in Britain: Trans Report. Stonewall, London.

Barker, M., Richards, C., Jones, R., Bowes-Catton, H., Plowman, T., Yockney, J. & Morgan, M. (2012). The bisexuality report: Bisexual inclusion in LGBT equality and diversity.

Brooks, R., Byford, K. & Sela, K. (2015). Inequalities in students’ union leadership: the role of social networks. Journal of Youth Studies, 18(9): 1204-1218.

Formby, E. (2015). Limitations of focussing on homophobic, biphobic and transphobic ‘bullying’to understand and address LGBT young people's experiences within and beyond school. Sex Education, 15(6): 626-640.

Gates, G.J. (2015). Marriage and family: LGBT individuals and same-sex couples. The Future of Children, 1(2015): 67-87.

Grimwood, M.E. (2017). What do LGBTQ students say about their experience of university in the UK? Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 21(4): 140-143.

Hafford-Letchfield, T., Cocker, C., Ryan, P., & Melonowska, J. (2016). Rights through alliances: Findings from a European project tackling homophobic and transphobic bullying in schools through the engagement of families and young people. The British Journal of Social Work, 46(8): 2338-2356.

Klein, N.A. & Dudley, M.G. (2014). Impediments to academic performance of bisexual college students. Journal of American College Health, 62(6): 399-406.

Krum, T.E., Davis, K.S., & Galupo, M.P. (2013). Gender-inclusive housing preferences: A survey of college-aged transgender students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 10(1-2): 64-82.

Linley, J.L., Nguyen, D., Brazelton, G.B., Becker, B., Renn, K., & Woodford, M. (2016). Faculty as sources of support for LGBTQ college students. College Teaching, 64(2): 55-63.

Lytle, M.C., Vaughan, M.D., Rodriguez, E.M., & Shmerler, D.L. (2014). Working with LGBT individuals: Incorporating positive psychology into training and practice. Psychology of sexual orientation and gender diversity, 1(4): 335.

Marston, K. (2015). Beyond bullying: The limitations of homophobic and transphobic bullying interventions for affirming lesbian, gay, bisexual and Trans (LGBT) equality in education. Pastoral Care in Education, 33(3): 161-168.

Mitchell, M. (2014). What works in tackling homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying among school-age children and young people? Evidence review and typology of initiatives.

Mitchell, M., Gray, M., & Beninger, K. (2014). Tackling homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying among school-age children and young people. Evidence review and typology of initiatives. London: Natcen.

Mobley Jr, S.D. & Johnson, J.M. (2015). The role of HBCUs in addressing the unique needs of LGBT students. New directions for higher education, 2015(170): 79-89.

Pearce, T. (2015). The student voice. In Bullying Among University Students (pp.17-20). Routledge.

Quaye, S.J. & Harper, S.R. eds. (2014). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. Routledge.

Rivers, I. (2017). Homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in schools. In School Bullying and Mental Health (pp.35-45). Routledge.

Strayhorn, T.L. (2018). College students' sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. Routledge.

Ward, R., Rivers, I., & Sutherland, M. (2012). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender ageing: Biographical approaches for inclusive care and support. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Wright, T.E. & Smith, N. (2013). Bullying of LGBT youth and school climate for LGBT educators. GEMS (Gender, Education, Music, and Society), the on-line journal of GRIME (Gender Research in Music Education), 6(1): 1-9.