UCL students divided on Stonewall verdict
This article outlines the responses to Pi Media’s anonymous survey, which was conducted after UCL’s decision to cut ties with Stonewall. Please note that the survey may not represent the views of the entire UCL student body.
Anonymous survey by Pi Media reveals division amongst the student body regarding UCL’s verdict to withdraw from LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall. TW: readers may find some content disturbing or hurtful.
Photo by Hasha Dar
UCL made national news headlines when on 16 December 2021, the university announced plans not to “re-join Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Programme or make a submission to the Workplace Equality Index”.
Over 850 organisations in the UK pay to be affiliated with Stonewall, which serves as an external consultant for institutions and workplaces to ensure an inclusive and welcoming environment for LGBTQ+ individuals. The Diversity Champions programme specifically aims to equip institutions with resources and training to make LGBTQ+ students and staff feel “valued, respected and represented”. Most universities in the UK are members of the programme and participate in the Workplace Equality Index, which is a list compiled by Stonewall to showcase the most inclusive organisations for LGBTQ+ individuals.
UCL’s decision came about due to concerns raised by the Academic Board that “Stonewall may be inhibiting academic work and discussion within UCL about sex and gender identity”. University’s official statement claims that sex and gender debates should be open, which a membership with Stonewall allegedly does not allow for, since the charity has a clear position on sex and gender definitions. This is one of the main arguments the Academic Board used to make its case, claiming that withdrawing from the organisation is necessary to “uphold academic freedom and freedom of speech in an academic context”.
The UCL LGBTQ+ Network Instagram account posted some leaked documents from the Academic Board meeting. It appears that the Academic Board is specifically concerned about Stonewall’s stance on “gender self-identification” and promotion of the “removal of legal provision for single-sex spaces” which comes into conflict with “feminists and LGB activists”. The Academic board also mentioned Stonewall’s increasingly questioned “business model, its lobbying and a lack of impartiality” and how that may result in UCL holding a “corporate viewpoint regarding a complex set of issues which are subject of current scholarly and public policy debate”. The Academic Board’s argument rests on the notion that Stonewall promotes “no debate tactics” which in their view, contributes to an “atmosphere where attempts at reasoned discussion on issues of sex and gender are met with attempts to shut down debate by any means”.
This debate reflects a wider controversy surrounding the organisation. Stonewall’s stance on gender identity and sex is criticised by several feminists like Julie Bindel, who argues that Stonewall’s stance on gender identity may endanger women who have been victims of crimes by predatory, violent men, emphasising the need of single sex spaces for women. Furthermore, a controversial no-platforming of Rosa Freedman by the University of Essex in 2019 was seen as Stonewall’s way of suppressing debate.
The organisation has been criticised by one of its own founders, Matthew Parris, who suggested that Stonewall should stay out of the “Trans rights war”. In May 2021, Liz Truss, the equalities minister, urged government departments to withdraw from Stonewall’s scheme.
As a result, companies have increasingly started questioning their relationship with Stonewall. UCL’s statement claims to replace Stonewall with an LGBTQ+ Equality Implementation Group to continue to support its student body. The reaction from students on social media was almost conclusively negative. The university’s decision was equated to a failure to protect its transgender students and stand up for their rights in what many perceive as an increasingly harmful and hostile environment. UCL’s LGBTQ+ Network is concerned that academic debate around this topic is detrimental or even harmful to trans individuals. The student society voiced opposition to UCL’s verdict in their public statement, stressing how “shocked and appalled” they are by this decision. Additionally, a number of open letters and petitions organised by societies and groups urged UCL to reinstate its relationship with the charity.
To gain a better understanding of the student body’s views on UCL’s decision, Pi Media conducted its own anonymous survey to find out what the UCL community thinks of this decision. The google survey was shared on popular platforms, like Instagram and Twitter, including UCL’s popular outlets, like the anonymous Facebook page UCLOVE . The survey collected 26 anonymous responses from members of the UCL community.
When asked: “Do you think that UCL should have cut ties with Stonewall?”, 50% of the respondents said yes, while another half said no. The outcome of the poll was somewhat surprising, considering that social media discourse on this subject was overwhelmingly pro-Stonewall.
The sentiment amongst those who support UCL’s decision to withdraw from Stonewall didn’t always stem from a lack of support for LGBTQ+ community here at UCL, but revealed a criticism of Stonewall as an organisation and its perceived controversial role in the media.
The answers indicated a general loss of faith in the organisation, pointing out that Stonewall is slowly exhibiting self-destructive behaviour. Several big organisations like the BBC, Ofcom and even the Equality and Human Rights Commission have cut ties with the charity. A respondent wrote that “other charities & organisations do company & public policy better”, pointing out that “Stonewall is becoming increasingly useless”. Another student added: “You can be supportive of the LGBTQ+ community without ties to Stonewall''.
“Stonewall no longer stands for what I believe in”, wrote an anonymous respondent. Many answers mirrored this position: “Stonewall has outlived its purpose”. In their view, Stonewall has a tendency to respond poorly to criticism.
To others, the organisation “seems to support harassment of individuals who don’t support their views”. Respondents referred to the de-platforming of professor Kathleen Stock, which in their view was “supported and backed by Stonewall”. After resigning from the University of Sussex, Prof. Stock has been critical of Stonewall for supressing debate on gender and sex in an academic setting. She states that Stonewall’s scheme “puts pressure on universities to churn out propaganda on behalf of Stonewall, and that influences students and staff”. She writes that her attitudes towards sex and gender identity, which in this case clash with Stonewall, “have no bearing of any hateful attitudes”. Her view comes in solidarity with other feminist activists like Susana Rustin, who believes that it’s not anti-trans to separate definitions of gender identity and sex and instead, advocates that separating both definitions is neccesary to tackle sex based oppression.
Multiple respondents perceive Stonewall as “a threat to academic freedom”, stating this as the reason for their lack of support for the charity. Others stated that “by aligning with Stonewall, organisations take a political stance on issues that are currently contentious”. Taking an active stance might be “incongruent with the ethos of a university”.
Multiple students were concerned about Stonewall’s stance on single-sex spaces, a highly contentious topic in the media. An anonymous respondent wrote about their personal experience:
“I was stalked 3 years ago. I often joke about it because my stalker wasn’t violent. We were CIS and opposite genders. There are charities specifically able to help and [provide] safe places & accommodation to ensure victims stay with nonviolent people of the same gender. This doesn’t really work if my stalker can self-identify that day as my gender and get access to my ‘safe and secure place’. This is a massive problem because my stalker claimed to have gender dysphoria to try and talk & connect with me knowing I support trans rights. Equalities Act 2010 saved me - Stonewall’s policy would have put me in more danger”
The anonymous survey also captured an extent of anxiety amongst students who support UCL’s decision. A respondent admitted that they deliberately have not left their name on the survey, because “publicly stating these opinions would result in bullying”. The respondent continued: “I believe this is true for several students who, far from being transphobic (there is not a single right I would want to deny to trans people), are afraid to be called such simply because they do not support certain dogmatic stances and principles embraced by certain activists''. They believe that “UCL can make a better LGBT+ safe and inclusive environment without Stonewall''.
The prevalent sentiment amongst those in opposition to UCL’s decision was disappointment and incredulity.
A respondent stated that debating sex and gender “removes the human aspect of trans and gender non-conforming people who have to live with the consequences of such debates. It’s not up for discussion. There are no sides to a human rights issue. Trans people exist and should be respected”. A transgender respondent wrote “This news only adds to the feeling of wanting to kill myself”.
General concern over the meaning of ‘freedom of academic debate’ was expressed in some answers. One respondent stated that: “people might want academic freedom to mean ‘freedom for anything and everything without consequence’, which then could result in ‘freedom for bigotry”. The respondent highlighted that “even if it isn’t their intention, that’s how it can appear''. Another student in the survey believed that:
“Stonewall helped to protect academic freedom for vulnerable LGBTQ+ groups, so cutting ties creates a risk of having the opposite consequences of the reasons given for this decision”
Many criticised the method which was used to come to this decision. A respondent highlighted that while University College Union is open to most staff and some students, the academic board “is generally limited to established people with power and advantage via a professorial role”. As a result, the board’s decision might have been “unrepresentative of wider staff profiles”.
The power dynamics in the decision process were traced towards the Academic Board’s “status and advantage”. The same student added:
“Many staff and students have no representation or the chance to be involved. The academic board seldom, if ever, seems to seek views from all staff and students”
A lack of transparency and involvement of the wider student and staff population seems to be the predominant reason why students were disappointed by the decision:
“We didn’t even have a voice or a vote. And arguments involved ‘academic freedom’- something that people with power and advantage have, but we don’t”.
Discontent was also expressed because LGBTQ+ groups were seemingly ignored by UCL’s relevant decision making body. A respondent highlighted that “every single LGBTQ+ group at UCL advised that UCL rejoin. Why have LGBTQ+ advisory and student groups if we’re just going to be ignored?”
It’s worth highlighting that UCL had to cut ties with Stonewall in the past due to financial repurposing. A respondent pointed out that this seems “absurd for a university with the size and resources at UCL”, especially when “we routinely hear about millions of pounds of resources here and there, such as for new campus expansions”.
The conclusion amongst those dissatisfied with UCL’s decision is clear. “UCL has shown with this decision that they are on the wrong side of history”, wrote an anonymous student. 46% of the respondents said yes, when asked if they are going to be engaging in activism to encourage UCL to re-join. A member of the LGBTQ+ Network committee noted that they “are doing whatever [they] can to help rejoin Stonewall”.
What emerges from this survey is the division amongst the student body, mirroring wider conversations on the topic at the moment. It’s worth noting that even those agreeing with UCL’s decision to withdraw claimed to be supportive of the LGBTQ+ community. In fact, some believed that UCL can provide a more inclusive environment without the charity’s presence. Nevertheless, Stonewall is the oldest LGBTQ+ charity in the UK, and for many, the charity’s presence gives reassurance that their rights, particularly trans rights, are respected and protected within and beyond academic setting. The UCL Student Union statement highlighted that the “external benchmarking and the independent framework of the Diversity Champions Scheme affords members of our community, so often discriminated against, some measure of protection”. A point of contention seems to be a lack of consensus on what the best course of action is to support LGBTQ+ students at UCL, i.e. being part of a charity or having UCL’s own programme.
The division in the survey reveals that students and staff at UCL have strong opinions about this subject. Whether one agrees or disagrees with UCL’s verdict, there is a consensus that UCL lacked a democratic approach. The Academic Board at UCL “advises the council on all academic matters and questions affecting the educational policy at UCL”. However, for many students, this debate stretches beyond the academic setting, because it affects their rights and well-being at UCL. The Provost encouraged students to discuss controversial issues and “learn the art of having a good coffee room debate”. Unfortunately, UCL students have not been invited to the coffee room to debate Stonewall.