Man launches sex discrimination case against gender studies course

Apparently, Tom Martin, a former student at LSE’s Gender Studies Institute, is suing them for discrimination. The F-word picked this up days ago, and it’s also been in the Guardian.

So the first thing I have to say about this is: I was wrong, badly wrong. Tom Martin was a student at LSE last year, and since then the Equality Act 2010 has come into force. s.94(2) says that ‘anything done in connection with the content of the curriculum’ is exempt from the discrimination and harassment provisions in further and higher education. The explanatory notes illustrate this in the following way:

A college course includes a module on feminism. This would not be discrimination against a male student.

I thought this was absurd, because who could possibly think it ever would be discrimination to require a man to take a feminism course?  Well, so now I know the answer to that. (And I’m very, very confident that he would have no chance if he were a student now that the Equality Act has replaced the previous legislation.)

The second thing I have to say is: I’m really, really curious to know what his claim is based on. The Evening Standard says it’s ‘breach of the Gender Equality Duty Act (by which I assume they mean the Equality Act 2006) but the gender equality duty doesn’t directly create anything an individual can sue for damages under. Elsewhere the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is mentioned, but it’s not clear whether he’s arguing it’s direct discrimination, indirect discrimination or harassment.  (Apparently among LSE’s arguments in response is that if there was any discrimination, it was justified: this suggests there’s an indirect discrimination claim in there somewhere, because direct discrimination can’t be justified in law.)

The third thing I have to say is that I’m not sure the new s.94(2) is a good thing. This is because it not only protects course content (and, remember, ‘anything done in connection with’ course content) from being found to have resulted in unlawful harassment, it protects it from being found to have resulted in unlawful detriment or disadvantage. It seems entirely possible that certain choices of course content could put a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage, but s.94(2) means that would be perfectly lawful. (At least, that’s how it seems to me. The people responsible think that the distinction between content of the curriculum and delivery of the curriculum will take care of this concern, but I’m not convinced.)

38 thoughts on “Man launches sex discrimination case against gender studies course

  1. Ach, I read the comments on the Evening Standard article, always a mistake. Internet commenters make me want to gouge my eyes out. Or pretend I’m from another planet.

    I’m especially annoyed at the complaint by a commenter that it’s not fair to make students ‘believe’ feminism. Since when is any student required to ‘believe’ the perspective of a text? I require students to read all sorts of philosophies, including contradictory views. Did I require students to be free-market libertarians as well as communists in my social-political class, and misogynists but also feminists in my feminism class? Wow, do I sound cruel!

  2. When I’m not teaching a hybrid, which reduces my classroom time, I always have a feminist philosophy module in my intro philosophy courses; and while it doesn’t happen all the time, it’s not uncommon for there to be one male student who is defensive through the whole thing; in most cases in most cases it’s just harmless difficulty in adjusting to ideas that can be pretty challenging, but there have been one or two that I could imagine taking a step like this if they were faced with it on a larger scale.

    I’m inclined to think that the content/delivery distinction probably can, in good hands, take care of the worries about content; although I’m not so sure that relying on such a distinction is the most effective way of doing it.

  3. I would say whether his case has merit really comes down to the content of the course itself since it is billed as gender studies not women or feminist studies. As such it should present the best theories and studies from the area giving a balance view of the issues at hand.

    Best example I can think of easily that would show a feminist bias that is discriminatory would be something like the gender pay gap as typically presented on main stream feminist sites (73c/D or similar) rather than showing the historic trends and support for a much closer wage gap (circa 5c/d) once you take into account most other factors. Similarly the motherhood gap when compared to workers not taking leave vs workers who have similarly long leaves (which typically much reduces or eliminates the gap).

    It all comes down to presentation and bias. Gender studies to me suggests a balanced approach to the roles of male and female gendered people historically and now and how non-binary genders are assigned to these categories. If it’s unbalanced then it’s really a misnamed subject which does seem worth correcting.

    The professor posting on CiF about this didn’t really help the case since he handwaved everything and said it was all ok.

  4. 2ndnin, I think that’s wrong. Sure, it can be that courses can be misleadingly advertised (by being misleadingly named, inter alia); and sure, there can be courses where the content delivered is false or uninformed. I’m not agreeing you with you about the cases – personally, I don’t see any false advertisement in a course called ‘gender studies’ delivering as its content issues in feminist theory. (I don’t really know about the pay gap issue in any detail, so will let others speak to that.) But putting aside the particular cases, the kind of thing you mention are surely possible. But nonetheless, this seems to me to be besides the point. Neither would be cases of discrimination, in the legal or moral senses of the term, it seems to me. And if a student had a problem with the course on the kinds of grounds you mention, the correct course is to follow the university procedures, not to sue the university for discrimination in the courts. That just seems to me to be absurd.

    Also, this is kind of besides the current issue, but I think it’s a mistake to think that professors are under any kind of obligation to present a ‘balanced’ view on the subject on which they are teaching. I don’t see any problem with a professor defending their position in the classroom, so long of course as students are not penalised (merely) for defending a contrary position.

  5. But – bear in mind – AFAIK the “coalition” government never put the Equality Act on the books. All the work is done (by the previous government), but they haven’t enacted it, because they are *******s.

  6. It might help to give an example to illustrate the kind of problem I have in mind over the content/delivery distinction.

    Suppose a history degree programme has a core module on visual culture, and this requires students to look at a Renaissance painting and comment on (say) its representation of religion. A blind student couldn’t do that task as it stands.

    And I take it that it’s just obvious that there’s nothing essentially visual about history such that a blind person couldn’t be a perfectly competent historian, and so that blind student ought not be prevented from completing the history degree simply because the university has chosen to make this piece of content compulsory.

    Now, there might be various kinds of adjustments or accommodations which would be reasonable – allow substitution of an alternative history module, for instance, or broaden the scope of the module to include other, non-visual, forms of cultural representation. But as I understand it, s94(2) means there’s no obligation to seek such adjustments or accommodations, because the content of the curriculum is exempt from the duty to make adjustments.

    Someone of good will, whose aim was to avoid unfair discrimination, probably would try to find alternatives, might question whether this task really is essential to the study of history, would look for ways to ‘deliver’ content dealing with cultural representation of important themes which didn’t exclude blind people. So they might take an approach, perhaps as Brandon has in mind, which sees the broader history curriculum as the ‘content’, and requiring this particular module and task as mere ‘delivery’.

    On the face of it, though, it seems hard to deny that the module and the task are covered by the phrase ‘anything done in connection with the content of the curriculum’. And the explanatory notes support this interpretation, because the example ‘a college course includes a module on feminism’ is offered to illustrate something covered by the phrase, and it seems closely analogous…

  7. PJN – you’re right that the Coalition Government has decided not to bring certain parts of the Equality Act 2010 into force, including the power to require reporting on equal pay, the positive duty on the public sector to consider socioeconomic inequality, and the provision on ‘combined’ discrimination involving two protected characteristics. But pretty much all of the rest of it has been brought into force – see http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/equalities/equality-act/commencement/ for details.

  8. My case against LSE regards incidents which took place in 2009, before the Equality Act was implemented.

    Also, regardless of the wording of the new Equality Act, in my case, the university’s regulations explicitly ruled out the use of sex-discriminatory learning materials, and this implies they will not be biased against one sex, so these implied terms of the contract have been breached, by the overwhelmingly misandric bias contained within the core texts, which were falsely advertised as not being sexist, but were known to be sexist.

    There are other issues too which I won’t go into pre-trial regarding the sex disxrimination act and others.

    [Solicitation for donations removed by a blog editor.] There is a feminist lecturer on the comments section of the Evening Standard article who agrees with my case on principle.

    [Solicitation for donations removed by a blog editor.]

  9. Tom, I’d really like to understand better what you mean when you say the materials were sexist: is it that they put you at a disadvantage compared with women on the course – made it harder for you to do well, for instance – or is it that you found the content offensive?

  10. Both. The learning materials were sexist in a plethora of ways, across all the usual issue. For the elite gender academics, this is not news. It was to me, as I thought a top university would not allow such bias – but they knowingly promoted the biased approach. It was not only anti-men, but anti science, as they had to ignore all statistics in order to maintain the veracity of the victim-feminist conceits. It was a menacing environment too. Other students quickly picked up on the expected modus operandi. I don’t want to go in to it too much, as I’ve agreed to keep certain issues out of the press until court.

  11. It would be really interesting to see your syllabus. The gender studies courses that I know of all represent a wide variety of views, rather than just a single one.

  12. I would also like to understand how the course materials put men at a disadvantage. I can’t conceive really of how course content could do that, but I’m open to learning otherwise. But the content being ‘anti-men’ or ‘anti-science’, if it was, doesn’t seem to me like it would put men at a disadvantage; presumably, men can engage with extra-scientific methods or with arguments to the effect that there is some failing with men just as well as women can.

    Of course, if there was a menacing environment in the classroom, that is a problem. Lacking any information on that, I’m simply not speaking to it, but I’m still very confused about the claim that the content was discriminatory.

  13. Ross, that’s what I was wondering too.

    I can see that Tom felt it was a menacing environment, and if that’s because of people’s behaviour, it’s unacceptable. (If it was an offensive environment purely because of the content of the material on the syllabus, then I don’t actually think that should count as unlawful harassment. A course involving one-sided or biased material is an incompetently taught course, and might well be offensive to some people, but I think it’s sufficiently important to protect the academic freedom to explore ideas that it shouldn’t be unlawful just on those grounds.)

    But I can’t think of an example which would make the inclusion of such material discriminatory, in the way that the visual-culture module arguably would be for a blind student.

  14. Agreed, Heg. Especially RE one-sided or biased course contents. Sure, it sounds bad for a course to be one-sided. But once you start legislating on that, you start forcing biologists to teach intelligent design, historians to teach Holocaust denial theories, etc. No one but academics can decide what being objectionably one-sided amounts to. And yes, the worst thing that having an objectionably one-sided course leads to, it seems, is having a bad course: I can’t yet see cases in which it would be discrimination, in either the legal or moral sense.

  15. I don’t know, Heg and Ross. Imagine a course that teaches the innate inferiority of black people, taught by a professor arguing that slavery was the right way to structure society. Now imagine a black student claiming that this content created a hostile environment that put them at a disadvantage. I’d be inclined to agree. The issue isn’t the one-sidedness (which is, as Heg says, a matter of pedagogical badness) but the hatefulness.

  16. More generally, I can imagine content creating a hostile environment sufficient to ground a claim of racial or sexual harassment.

  17. I’m astonished that content of learning materials can be “ruled out” on the basis of the sex-discriminatory biases of the authors. This would render much of the history of philosophy impossible to teach, since text after text says women are inferior, ugly, irrational, illogical, and incapable of philosophy. Obviously, I do not *agree* with the authors, but to ignore, e.g., the philosophical thought of Aristotle, Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche would be a disservice to students of philosophy and history. Is Tom Martin’s lawsuit seriously predicated on policies that ban books, or that seek to? Would it not be preferable to be permitted to teach and read them, in order to work out the arguments for their views and refute them?

    To do so requires respectful climate and conscientiousness regarding students’ feelings, so climate matters. But material ought not be banned. I found it challenging to teach a course in which we read philosophers like Arthur Schopenhauer and Mary Daly, both of whom make implausibly grandiose claims about whole sexes. But I did it, because as a class of adults capable of philosophy, we were engaged in a cooperative endeavor of argument-parsing and truth seeking in order to work out (1) why philosophers have said such statements, (2) how to argue against them accurately and fairly, and (3) what, then, to think about our own attitudes toward sex and gender as a result of what we learned from the ways others have thought.

  18. When I say ‘anti-science’ I mean the texts expressed a will to misinform, and be biased, against men, when they weren’t just being biassed against men surreptitiously.
    Men were presented as if they are against equality.
    Feminism was presented as if it were a female-only concern.
    Texts recommended gender studies should be a focus on women only.
    Other texts recommended ignoring men’s studies, and instead deploying ‘Critical Studies on Men (CSM)’.

    Sex-discriminatory learning materials are clearly ruled out by the university’s regulations. I signed up for a Masters of Science degree in gender – but got a masterclass in the dark art of perpetuating ‘men bad, women good’ and ‘women victims, men perpetrators’ types of lies.

    There was no warning of this sexist agenda in any of the promotional material for the course. Rather, of an egalitarian mission statement.

    There is evidence that LSE personnel admit they only named it the ‘Gender Institute’ in order to attract more funds than if it had been called ‘The Women’s Studies Institute’ for instance.

    Claims that gender studies is inclusive to men is window dressing only. Men are not masochists in general,
    so should not be expected to tolerate the systemic anti-male agenda.

    And they don’t tolerate it. Out of 90 students, 85 were female, and five men.

    Further attacks by the gender orthodoxy on white male heterosexuals left its mark too, as I appeared to be the only white heterosexual male in attendance.

    But race and sexuality identity attacks by the academy aside – there were a string of gender issues dealt with one-sidedly creating the illusion that men in general are bad, or perpetrators, and women good and victims.

    And then there are all the men’s equality issues which do not show up at all in the curriculum:

    Parental pay and leave inequality – silence.

    Retirement age inequality – nothing.

    Homelessness inequality – nothing.

    Conscription inequality – nothing.

    The fathers rights movement, has not yet registered in the curriculum.
    nor, the men’s rights movement, where as women only-focused feminist movement talk is omnipresent.

    Violence against women got frequent discussion, whilst female violence against men, was entirely ignored.

    Rape of women was frequently discussed, while rape of men, not at all.

    “The glass ceiling” was left unpacked, so we never got to hear about the research dispelling such defeatism.

    Sex-trafficking was talked of as if these women are conscripts, when usually, they actually volunteer for it.

    “The patriarchy” was a theory which was presented as fact, left unpacked – and never properly criticized, or more forcefully dismissed as laughable.

    Men were presented as controlling women in marriages, when the research shows women tend to boss men 90% of the time.

    Misogyny was frequently referred to, but nothing on misandry at all – despite evidence that women verbalise four times more misandry then men do misogyny, and despite evidence that ‘factual’ media on men is overwhelmingly negative too.

    Men’s shorter life expectancy ought to some warrant discussion, on the scale of things, but it’s a men’s issue, so ignored.

    All the factors that contribute to men’s shorter life expectancies – the inequalities of opportunity and outcome men face and achieve – typically ignored.

    So, while brochures and apologists for the female-only gender orthodoxy will claim feminism and gender studies is about men too – this does not stand up to scrutiny.

    The gender elite, including those at LSE, acknowledge that feminism/gender studies makes refusals, blocking men’s issues. They hint gender needs to be usurped, by some other (more egalitarian) movement.

    But this is more gatekeeping, time-wasting guff. They know there is no movement to replace theirs.

    I do not buy that gender is too brittle to change its stories.

    If we stress how malleable and inclusive gender can become, adding the controlled heat of legal action like mine, then inclusive, I hope to find, it will become.

    I think though, by stressing how malleable and inclusive gender can become, and by applying a controlled heat to it, then malleable and inclusive it will miraculously become.

    I’d like to see a few more voices in feminism and on the left, distancing themselves from victim-feminist ant-male discourse – making it clear gender studies has no use for it – as we all want equality, and should refocus our efforts, to actually move forward.

    [Solicitation for donations removed by a blog editor.]

  19. Jender, I definitely think that there can be hostile and discriminatory environments created in a classroom, and that the content of the course could be at least a causal factor in the creation of such an environment. But what would be objectionable, I think, would still be the environment and not the content delivered. It might be that that content simply *can’t* be delivered without creating a hostile environment: but still, all we need to stop this environment from being created are rules that say you can’t have a hostile or discriminatory environment in the classroom – rules about what content can be delivered, it seems to me, would always be a bad thing. If a rule about what environments are allowed has a consequence for what contents can be delivered, so be it.

    But what I really object to (not that you were saying anything to go against this of course, I just feel like reiterating it!) is the claim that course content ought to be ‘balanced’. I genuinely don’t know what that means. It surely doesn’t mean ‘must represent every position’, for that would be absurd. (I don’t teach the shrinking block view when I teach the metaphysics of time. I think I’m not hurting anyone, even if they enrolled on the course thinking ‘Cool, philosophy of time, I really wanna hear about the shrinking block.) But this claim seems to get rolled out a lot when people don’t like a professor’s course.

  20. The course was advertised as one which would represent a range of perspectives – but on men, there was fundamentally, only one rule.

    I am in the Guardian today, on page 31, responding to ex Gender Institute researcher Jonathan Dean’s cover up on 8th September.

    It will be on the Guardian’s website after 9am, with the headline ‘You can’t deny it. Gender studies is full of male-blaming bias.

    My email address is at the end of the article.

  21. Jender, I agree that the kind of hostile environment you describe for a black student in comment 17 – materials on the the supposed innate inferiority of black people, presented by someone who believes (and argues) that slavery is a good way to structure society – would put that student at a disadvantage.

    Perhaps what I want to say is that such a student should be entitled to protection from the disadvantage, but not from the hostile/harassing environment itself? It seems like in some cases you’d have one but not the other: for instance, if (part of) the reason the black student in your example is put at a disadvantage is to do with stereotype threat and other mechanisms linked to current and historical patterns of oppression, then the fact that the harassment causes disadvantage depends on social context. In contrast, a male student in an analogously hostile course might experience a hostile environment, but it wouldn’t trigger stereotype threat.

    I think my reluctance to say that harassment should, in itself, be unlawful may have to do with cases of conscientious objection.

    For instance, you might have someone on a counselling course who is strongly opposed to abortion, and wants to be exempted from an assessment exercise where they have to offer counselling to a pregnant woman considering an abortion. They might feel offended by the requirement, and experience that environment as hostile. But I don’t think they should be exempted (though I realise that’s a controversial position). Likewise, I don’t think students should be able to claim exemption from reading Schopenhauer or Daly in the course Kate Norlock describes above.

    On the other hand, I think the blind student required to do a module on visual culture is entitled to an adjustment (that is, I want it to be unlawful to discriminate against the blind student by insisting on the visual culture module).

  22. and Ross, I agree that there should be no room for people to demand ‘balance’ in course content as a right. A critical approach to content, yes (otherwise I don’t see that we’re even talking about an academic activity) but not ‘balance’.

  23. That’s interesting, Tom: it hadn’t occurred to me that that would be part of your claim. How was performance on the course assessed? What were the negative stereotypes of men which you found were made salient and therefore affected your performance in assessments?

  24. One in particular, was the idea that women’s ‘ways of knowing’ were cyclical, men’s ‘linear’, and that we were being taught the course in a cyclical fashion, and that there was no getting away from the fact that women alone menstruate – so the general message, was that women had an innate advantage at learning something in the style we would be learning it.

    Remember Larry Summers, the president of Harvard, who said in an off campus speech that women might have an innate disadvantage at maths. He had to go.

    I was being told I had an innate disadvantage, and it was in a core, compulsory, introductory class.

    This is just one example.

  25. I objected in class at the time. It was six weeks of feeling the mental and physical effects of stereotype threat (like ‘fight or flight’) – it was not conducive to higher thought. It has been a long fight since then too.

  26. Heg, you write: “Perhaps what I want to say is that such a student should be entitled to protection from the disadvantage, but not from the hostile/harassing environment itself? It seems like in some cases you’d have one but not the other: for instance, if (part of) the reason the black student in your example is put at a disadvantage is to do with stereotype threat and other mechanisms linked to current and historical patterns of oppression, then the fact that the harassment causes disadvantage depends on social context.”

    I’d go just the opposite way actually. An environment hostile enough to count as racial or sexual harassment should not be allowed, and I take the course I described to constitute one. But stereotype is so ubiquitous that it shouldn’t be actionable. (E.g. anything perceived as a test of academic ability is likely to be stereotype threat-triggering for African Americans.)

    You also write: “In contrast, a male student in an analogously hostile course might experience a hostile environment, but it wouldn’t trigger stereotype threat.” This isn’t so clear to me either. Members of groups that are not *generally* stigmatised can still experience stereotype threat in certain circumstances (e.g. white people doing sports). Steele actually discusses the stereotype threat experienced by white students in African American Studies courses, interestingly. But I do think that is likely to occur for whites in AA Studies courses and for men in women’s studies courses quite generally. So that on its own doesn’t seem to me something one should be able to sue for. Again, harassing content strikes me as different.

  27. Similarly, I don’t think women should be able to sue over the stereotype threat they experience in maths, philosophy, phsyics etc. (I don’t think you were suggesting that stereotype threat alone could ground a complaint, Heg, but I want to make sure this isn’t misunderstood!)

  28. Jender, you’re quite right, I don’t want to say that stereotype threat should be actionable in itself.

    My original concern is that the Equality Act has removed all protection from harassment or discrimination related to the content of the curriculum, and that seems wrong, because I think there are clear cases where curriculum content could result in unfair and unnecessary disadvantage (blind history student/visual culture module).

    So my first thought was: reinstate protection from discrimination related to the content of the curriculum, but not protection from harassment.

    Remember, harassment includes conduct which has the effect of creating an offensive environment for someone, and that person’s own perception is part of what settles whether the conduct had that effect. So in my example, a counseling student finds it offensive to have to hold a neutral discussion with a woman who is considering an abortion. (I suggested this kind of case might be about ‘conscience’, but that isn’t quite right – a gay student who finds it offensive to read about catholic views on homosexuality would be in an analogous position, I think).

    It seems to me the advantages of protecting against discrimination, but not against harassment, are:
    – if the content resulted in (indirect) discrimination, it could still be lawful so long as it’s objectively justified (compulsory visual culture module not justified in history degree, but might be justified in photography degree). So there’s a way to preserve academic standards.
    – discrimination claims have to show that there’s been some detriment or disadvantage, not merely that someone has been offended, so it wouldn’t be enough for someone to object to a reading on gay marriage because they find the subject offensive, they’d have to show that having to read it put them at a disadvantage compared with other students.

    But then I’ve got a problem: what about the black student in your example, subjected to a hostile environment consisting in the ideas presented in the course? I completely agree that where the content of the curriculum creates an environment hostile enough to count as racial or sexual harassment that’s a really really bad thing, but can I accommodate that, given my suggestion? And my thought was, perhaps there’s a way for that student to argue that they’ve been put at a disadvantage – and not merely offended – in order to found a discrimination claim; I wondered if appealing to stereotype threat might help to establish such a claim. But that’s problematic, for the reasons you suggest.

    The thing is, I’m still wary of extending protection against curriculum content to cover harassment as well as discrimination, because I think it would then be difficult to exclude claims of the conscience/offense kind I described above.

    It’s true that it might be possible to defend oneself successfully against such claims, because (as well as the student’s subjective experience of offense) a court would also take into account ‘the other circumstances of the case’ in deciding whether the conduct constituted harassment. What might those circumstances be? One obvious candidate is: all the other readings on the course. So you say to the gay student, yes, we’re reading texts asserting that homosexuality is a sin, but we’re also reading papers arguing for gay marriage, so in all the circumstances of the course, including the former shouldn’t count as unlawful harassment.

    But now we could end up having to justify why we didn’t include religious writers opposing abortion in a bioethics class, or why we think it’s important to read Aristotle despite his views on women. That’s at least part of Tom Martin’s challenge: for instance, he wanted discussion of the violence women do to men to be presented on a par with discussion of the violence men do to women. And I just don’t think that debate should get off the ground.

    I mean, I think this is just the point Ross made in comment 21; sure, course content could be a causal factor in a discriminatory environment, but in making the rules we should focus on the environment and on detrimental effects, not the course content. Otherwise, the risk is that we face endless calls for ‘balance’, based on legal rather than pedagogical or scholarly concerns.

  29. […] There are a number of issues that make this case thoroughly ridiculous. The notion that a man is complaining about a woman-heavy focus in a gender studies course has been covered well elsewhere, and I do not have much to add to this issue. Another very noteworthy point is that it is hard to see how this is actually “discrimination”. LSE point out that as men and women had equal access to both the course and the key readings, no direct gender discrimination took place. This point is expanded here. […]

  30. Yes, it is tough. I think there are real problems with defining harassment in a way that allows offense to be sufficient and we’re running up against them. But those problems are present in lots of cases, not just those involving course content. And it seems to me that they’re the real source of the problem.

    (And your comment is certainly a contender.)

  31. Another thing I was wrong about: the distinction between use and mention really is important, as opposed to just interesting enough to write a master’s thesis on:

    http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3431

    (student fails to distinguish between a professor *mentioning* an offensive opinion in order to point out that it’s unacceptable, and *using* the same phrase to assert the opinion…)

  32. The defense, that course content was equally available to both men and women to read, and therefor did not discriminate against men, is a familiar one – like saying the bus is available for everyone to get on, but the blacks have to sit at the back.

    or, in Saudi Arabia, where men and women are allowed on the bus, but where two men must get up to give one woman a seat.

    And of course, taking a bus ride and being discriminated against may be annoying, degrading, humiliating, and wrong, but at least you will all get to the same destination.

    With a course of study, it is well documented, that the negatively stereotyped group members experience physiological and psychological difficulties associated with fight or flight – leading to lower test scores.

    Levels of unfairness in the workplace, correlates with a decrease in the ability to concentrate long term, and to stick to long term goals – the Whitehall 2 study covers some of this, along with the concomitant failure in health.

    It is recognized in harassment case law, that negatives stereotypes, presented over a long time, are indeed, extremely bad for a person’s health.

    I am limiting disclosure in this case pre-trial, to my accusations about the content of the core texts, but my legal complaint covers everything that took place, encompassing many legal strands of discrimination and contract law.

  33. Just a word to all these legal eagles trying to dismiss this claim. Another firm of lawyers has posted a document on the internet explaining why they think my case is going to fail – but they, like this article, fail to notice that the discrimination I am suing took place in 2009, before the Equality Act 2010 came into force.

    So that means, acts of deliberate anti-male bias and stereotyping are not permitted in a learning environment, in regards to my pre-2010 case.

    Also, that other article builds its argument on the university’s word, that the key texts were not compulsory – merely recommended – but they were compulsory. They told us, we had to read these three key texts as a bare minimum.They were the only texts the university provided for us, and made us discuss, in the seminars. There were other texts, called ‘recommended texts’ which were not compulsory – and not provided for us.

    The university is trying to claim the key texts we had to read and had to discuss, were only the recommended texts.

    Every student, lecturer, philosopher, and judge will know – this is a desperate defense by a desperate university.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s