We all knew that the Trump administration’s attacks on diversity, equality and inclusion would have ramifications in the UK, but we probably didn’t expect it to show up quite so quickly.
This Saturday’s lead in The Times warned that – in tacit contrast to President Trump’s apparent intention that all federal funding should cease to organisations or projects that champion inclusion – UK universities could now lose public money if they do not.
This refers, of course, to the ongoing consultation on the people, culture and environment measure in the 2029 Research Excellence Framework. Back in 2023, our tongues firmly in our cheeks, we held a panel session at our Festival of HE titled “Has REF gone woke?” That joke no longer looks so funny.
DK has explained elsewhere on the site exactly what’s wrong with the claims about the REF in The Times, should you need ammunition to fire over the dinner party table. We should hardly be surprised by now to see half truths and scare tactics mobilised in this particular culture war. Its proponents are not in the main motivated by a concern for evidence as by animus against a particular set of values which it suits them to project as being in opposition to [delete as appropriate] common sense/free market economics/honest working people/standards in public services/The Meritocracy.
While the spectacle in the US of wealthy white men openly deploying their enormous power against those who are minoritised and disenfranchised is truly horrifying, FT science columnist Anjana Ahuja last week pointed to a larger concern: that scientists, funders and research organisations would quietly divest from equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives, or deprioritise vital research into differential experiences of or outcomes from public health, provision of public services, justice, or education, consciously or unconsciously orienting the scientific endeavour towards the locus of power rather than towards truth or justice. Any such reorientation would have a serious impact, both through loss of talent in research, and loss of knowledge that could improve, and save, many lives.
The politics in the UK
You might feel that despite the tendency of part of the UK media to promulgate the culture wars, UK research is unlikely to experience anything like as serious as the US. And that is probably correct in the short term, given the current flavour of the Westminster and devolved governments. The temptation when there is a lot of noise but without much real likelihood of action, is to stay quiet, and wait for the noise to pass. That would be a mistake.
Despite the size of the Labour government’s majority, the current political battle – including the Labour Party – is on the populist right. The Conservatives under opposition leader Kemi Badenoch are locked in a struggle with Reform, which is currently not only beating the Tories in the polls, but is also neck and neck with Labour as a chunk of (socially, if not necessarily economically) conservative voters become impatient with Labour but are not ready to turn back to the big-C Conservatives.
None of this should be an immediate cause for concern – the next election is a long way off, and Farage remains a good distance from No 10. But it does appear to mean, unfortunately, that political discourse tends to gravitate to the populist right, as it is these potential Reform voters both parties hope to woo back. Badenoch – whose anti-woke credentials formed part of her appeal to Tory members – has called diversity and inclusion work “woke indoctrination.” Labour has been adamant on the need to cut net migration, a perennial Reform issue, despite the likely impact on its stated priority of economic growth. The next Westminster election may yet be fought on an “anti-woke” platform. And Labour may be a one-term government, as Biden was in the US.
What could the response be?
An instance last week in which Secretary of State for Health Wes Streeting was asked about diversity, equality and inclusion activity in the NHS gives a sense of the issues higher education institutions will be working through in this space. Streeting’s measured answer acknowledged the cost of such activity in a time of economic constraint but robustly defended the importance of, for example, anti-racist bullying and harassment work in the NHS. He added that on occasion some “daft things” have been done in the name of equality, diversity and inclusion – the part of his answer which inevitably formed the bulk of media headlines.
On equality, diversity and inclusion there is a principle at stake and a “political fight” to be had, in Streeting’s words, in which organisations that operate in the public interest must continue to stand up for the idea that any just and humane society makes a meaningful effort to address systemic and structural inequality no matter the economic environment or the political backlash.
But nor should external pressures dissuade the academic and scientific community, higher education institutions or students’ unions, from examining the evidence, and keeping the public conversation open about how such efforts are best accomplished in practice.
The culture wars thrive on category slippage between principle and practice – when one or two examples of specific initiatives are held to stand for all forms of equality and inclusion work. Anyone may have doubts about the merits of any given approach, and the best way to engage with those doubts is through evidence and good-faith discussion. Higher education has a responsibility not simply to protect and defend its own practice but to subject equality, diversity and inclusion practice to thoughtful scrutiny in the interests of promoting that principle – to contribute to making the public conversation as informed as possible.
Research England, in its extended consultation and discussion of its people, culture and environment measure, and its mobilisation of evidence, is therefore a shining exemplar of good practice. Inevitably some will feel that the resultant system puts too much weight on equality, while others will wish that the funding mechanisms would lean in harder.
What is not really arguable is that our collective approach to the management of research and education – what is prioritised, who is supported – has real-world consequences that shape the future of our society. To suggest that it’s wrong for evidenced consideration of how equality, diversity, and inclusion manifests in the funding mechanisms that drive those decisions is simply absurd.
