University ‘forced out diversity adviser over threatening views’
“FAR-LEFT” university bosses have been accused of forcing out a diversity adviser after staff said criticism of transgender activism was “threatening”.
The equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) adviser at the University of Sheffield had been employed for more than two years working on LGBT inclusion and a race equality action plan.
But in October, his colleagues from a trade union spoke to managers about him signing a “statement of solidarity” for Prof Kathleen Stock, the philosophy expert who quit Sussex University amid bullying by trans activists.
In a letter, the anonymous staff in a trade union at the university said his signature – with 2,800 staff from other UK universities – was “particularly concerning given his role in ED&I work at the university”. The letter, seen by The
Sunday Telegraph, was sent to Prof Gill Valentine, the deputy vice chancellor, and Ian Wright, the HR director.
Within a month, the adviser, who asked to remain anonymous, was moved to different work in the HR department without a formal investigation as his views “created friction with key stakeholders”. His appeal and request for an apology were rejected, documents show.
Prof Valentine noted in meetings: “The complainants stated there was a conflict given that [he] was a member of the HR team and the EDI team who was working with the LGBT staff network and that his views could be threatening to trans members of that group.”
The adviser quit the university in July and has warned of senior leaders “crumbling” to “dictatorial” trade union activists. “The far-Left have hijacked important issues and senior leaders in universities ... are actively removing anyone who dares to make their legal views known,” he told The Telegraph.
The University of Sheffield said it is “we support our staff and students to hold and debate a wide range of views and ideas”. A spokesman said: “Some staff questioned whether they would be able to work well together on specific equality projects ... The grievance process and the subsequent appeal found that the refocus of his role had not led to any detriment.”