The 1UCS has students and employees from over 140 countries, therefore it claims the integrity of diversity. It boasts a dynamic mix of people and ideas that creates an excellent international reputation, producing a unique and enriching experience for its employees. For this purpose, a governance structure has been installed by HR comprising of the EDI committee, which seeks to maintain E&D by services accessibility, equitable treatment and multicultural understanding regarding all employees belonging to various protected characteristics. Also, the university has a regulation, ensuring protection from discrimination towards its employees implemented by the Solo Equality Structure (SES).
University documentation states that the SES is refurbished every three years to review current strengths and weaknesses on E&D issues and generate appropriate policy proposals to maximise E&D within the University. The equality data is publicly available through the University website which, at the time of the research, stated that there were approximately 148 disabled employees and 589 disabled students.
Although policy development influenced by the legislation is considered to be fair, equal and just (Boon et al., 2011), it is argued that the legislation (EqA) creates a confusing gap between the policy and its effective implementation (Rainbird et al., 2011, Malika, 2011). To overcome this issue, instead of simply complying with the law, 1UCS incorporates a detailed description of policy, including its requirements, implementation procedures and communication methods. However the data discussed below highlighted that this may create unnecessary bureaucratic barriers and complicated administrative procedures for employees (Adler, 1999). Consequently, instead of simplifying the policy, it is further complicated (Maynard and Maynard, 2000). For example, the SES policy begins with an opening introductory explanation of E&D, then is divided into three sub- sections policies on Anti-Bullying, Anti-Harassment and Victimisation policies, which explains the management process, procedures and the practises involved, as well as examples of either
hypothetical or past reported situations, these are again divided into sub-sections. The other section includes describing the organisational culture, which contains descriptions of the HR department
117
and their connections to the policy, which seems to be an optional necessity to be stated in this section of the policy. Furthermore, it gives the procedure of making a complaint, which is an
important part of explaining the policy procedure. However, the procedure does not at all look like a straightforward process. At the end there is a section on ‘who to contact’ stating a list of people along with their designations and contact numbers, instead of simply having a universal number. It seems that employing such elaborate methods for explaining policies becomes confusing for service users but provides protection to the University from any potential litigation, highlighting how policies can be re-invented to ensure legal self-interest rather than safeguarding the wellbeing of employees.
The 1UCS has a separate policy on disability known as Policy of Disability (PoD), which complies with the EqA and, prior to this, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 (SENDA), regarding disability provisions. The PoD focuses on maximising, creating and maintaining accessibility and information regarding services, facilities and activities for disabled and prospective disabled employees. It is claimed that this assists in developing a diverse and inclusive culture, where
disability is celebrated and employees feel motivated and confident to disclose their disability, at the same time showing compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998, which includes the right for
disabled people’s employment (Clements and Read, 2003).
Table 8.1 Equality Policies at 1UCS
The PoD recognises the social model, which addresses the disabling barriers towards disabled
people. However, the policies and procedures also closely follow the EqA on defining disability, suggesting an acknowledgement of the medical model (Geffen, 2013). This contradiction indicates how policies and procedures may become chaotic and confused for disabled employees (Ball, 1993,
Policy Objective Duties
SES A set of policies combined together.
Improving E&D across the University. Developing and promoting an
inclusive culture, E&D activities for all protected groups, aligned with the EqA legislation and international equality standards.
Responsible for preventing and eradicating discrimination, harassment and victimisation. Promoting E&D and reenergising protected groups of employee’s networks by maximising
engagement in all possible E&D initiatives, promotions and activities.
PoD Disability specific
Maximising accessibility by taking steps to ensure that no-one is treated less favourably on the ground of disability. Motivation towards disability disclosure.
Responsible for reviewing and monitoring all systems, procedures, facilities, services and buildings in compliance with the EqA. Creating, maintaining and disseminating information about services and facilities available for disabled and prospective disabled employees.
118
Fevre et al., 2013), possibly suggesting a politics of documentation where policies and procedures are used strategically to conceal discrimination and intolerance (Ahmed, 2007b) towards disability, protecting the University from any legal threat.
To monitor the impact of its E&D policies and practices, the 1UCS incorporates an Equality
Framework (EF), assisting in the evaluation and recognition of the performance outcomes. The EF is similar to the Equality Impact Assessment recommended by the Equality Challenge Unit, which is not a legal requirement, but is considered to be beneficial in ensuring E&D within policies, practices, procedures, fair decision-making, meeting employees requirements and not discriminating against any protected-characteristic (ECU, 2015b). The policy documentation draws on a business case argument, stating a belief that E&D practises are effective and there is a direct connection towards economic success, demonstrating a correlation between successful businesses and a commitment to diversity, even though the exact chain of causation might be difficult to prove (EC, 2005).
The documentary policy analysis suggested that the policies are described in excessive detail, causing much bureaucracy (Adler, 1999), which might be difficult to be interpreted by disabled employees. Thus, creating a perception that the 1UCS is only interested in protecting itself from legalities, instead of protecting its employees (O’Connell, 2014). Nonetheless, this shall be further analysed through the OH of the disabled academics participants. Lastly, the 1UCS buildings comprise of old Victorian style architecture and physical accessibility was a concern. However, it was
discovered that large amounts of finances are being used to create high standards of accessibility.