Beaver
Issue 853 | 22.3.16
the
Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union
Former LSE Student Accuses School of Criminal Wrongdoing Greg Sproston News Editor NEW INFORMATION HAS emerged which would appear to suggest that the issue of segregation at LSE is not only more entrenched than first assumed, but that the school itself has systematically and repeatedly failed to protect its vulnerable students. A PhD student, who has since graduated, made a formal complaint whilst still a student over gender segregation as early as January 2015 to the school, but it appears as though no definitive action has been taken. The complaint was initially made to the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion office but the matter was later taken up specifically by Pro-Director for Teaching and Learning, Paul Kelly. A series of email exchanges obtained by The Beaver show that student Chris Moos wrote to the EDI office on 13 January 2015 to officially complain over what he felt was repeated instances of gender segregation. After no reply was received, Chris sent a follow up email on 20 January 2015 and was informed by the EDI office two
days later that the matter was being ‘investigated’ by Paul Kelly and Robin Hoggard. Writing directly to Paul Kelly on 22 January 2015, Chris Moos asked for a number of assurances, most notably that an inquiry be set up to establish the prevalence of gender segregation at LSE, that steps be taken to ensure further segregation did not occur, and that future society events were monitored in case of further segregation. In his emails to senior school management, Chris Moos’ allegations of gender segregation were based on six Facebook events which he says explicitly referenced segregation. Given the amount of time that has elapsed, these events are no longer visible on Facebook and it is impossible to ascertain the veracity of these claims. However, two flyers for Islamic Society events which predated Chris’ complaint - A Snowdon Charity Climb in October 2014 and Freshers’ Fair 2014 - explicitly refer to segregation. More troubling still, it would seem extremely difficult to argue that these events could be exempted under EHRC guidance either for religious or voluntary
reasons. In the case of segregation for religious worship, the guidance notes that ‘Once such events or meetings go beyond religious worship or practice, equality law applies and the courts are likely to consider any gender segregation taking place to be unlawful’, which would imply significant difficulty in justifying the entirety of a mountain climb to be segregated - a similar criticism could be applied to ISOC’s recent annual dinner. Secondly, the guidance advises that any segregation ‘wholly and demonstrably voluntary, both at the booking stage and during the event’. It would likewise be extremely difficult to prove that this was the case for Freshers events, where many would-be attendees are only just arriving at the school and had no input into the organisation of such events. In his response, Paul Kelly tacitly acknowledged there was a problem by noting that ‘... when the School learned of the events [which Chris complained about]…. officers of the School discussed the events with the organisers and drew their attention to the risk that the way the events were advertised may
have contravened the guidance.’ However, Mr. Kelly did not specifically acknowledge the investigation that was mentioned by the EDI office, nor did he mention any further action that was either taken, or planned in the event of further instances where the EHRC guidance may have perceived to have been breached. It may be reasonably assumed that the school’s decision to open a dialogue with ISOC over the nature of the way events were advertised was indicative of concern on School management’s part. Further, it could be reasonably assumed that this was a first, relatively uncontroversial step in ensuring that the School, SU, and students were complying with legal guidance. In any event, it appears that the School’s concern over any contravention of legislation quickly dissipated, as did its desire to escalate its attempts to ensure legislation would be followed. Since the complaints made by Chris Moos, in which LSE senior management took a first step in opening a dialogue with ISOC, there have been a number of occasions in which the advertisement of so-
Comment The Union
ciety events appear to clash with EHRC guidance. This is not to say that the events definitively did contravene legislation, but there certainly was a perception that this could’ve been the case; something which the School should have taken more seriously. Nevertheless, it is not clear to see whether the School saw fit to extend the action it took regarding Chris Moos’ complaints, or even to proactively address such issues at all. In an email to its members on 15 February 2015, ISOC advertised a segregated event that was specifically social in nature, the ‘Mid Term Sister’s Social’. Whilst this event followed collective religious observance, which is legitimately segregated, the event itself was explicitly nonreligious, consisting of a trip of to popular American diner Tinsel Town. During Freshers Week 2015, the administration and organisation of events largely mirrored the previous year in relation to segregation, which in 2014 was the subject of a specific complaint. Continued on page 3 beaveronline.co.uk & LSE Students Union Facebook page
When SU Politics Came of Age Race to the Top: Meet the Gen Sec candidates! Page 8 Page 16