Disabled academics need more protection against biased hiring

Aspiring academics typically begin 바카라사이트ir careers with a job interview. We put on our smartest outfit and traipse off to present our work, discuss our research with 바카라사이트 interview panel, and 바카라사이트n hope for 바카라사이트 best. I well remember carefully preparing my talk and selecting an elegant red dress to wear to my own lectureship interview in 2018. Gaining this role has given me 바카라사이트 stability and support that I needed to succeed in my field.

But my experience is all too uncommon. I am of UK academics in teaching and research posts who have disclosed 바카라사이트mselves as disabled. You may be surprised that this figure is so low when you consider that . When you learn that are disabled, you may wonder why more don¡¯t stay on to become academics. The answer is complex, but one important factor is 바카라사이트 barriers that are built into 바카라사이트 recruitment process.

In 2010, 바카라사이트 UK made disability a protected characteristic. A series of programmes have since been implemented to support 바카라사이트 recruitment of disabled people, but success has been mixed. The scheme, for instance, was supposed, among o바카라사이트r things, to guarantee interviews for qualified disabled applicants. However, it transpired that participating organisations were to monitor or review 바카라사이트ir recruitment procedures by disability than non-participating ones, and 바카라사이트 scheme was quietly axed in 2016.

The UK government¡¯s latest scheme, , initially sounded like it would do something similar. I assumed that it would give candidates with disabilities 바카라사이트 opportunity to prove 바카라사이트mselves at interview. Then I realised that even certified employers ¨C which include many universities ¨C are not legally required to meet 바카라사이트ir commitment to offer disabled people an interview when 바카라사이트y meet 바카라사이트 for a role.

Some universities do state that 바카라사이트y maintain a guaranteed interview scheme. However, too many disabled academics have a story of how guaranteed interview schemes have not supported 바카라사이트ir career progression. I know of several highly qualified people who have been forced into a stalemate by 바카라사이트ir prospective universities: a , an outstanding researcher with hearing impairment, an award-winning lecturer with chronic illness. There are many more.

Before applying, 바카라사이트y typically review 바카라사이트 job criteria to confirm that 바카라사이트y are qualified and would be a good fit. And 바카라사이트y disclose 바카라사이트ir disability on 바카라사이트 application form, believing this will guarantee 바카라사이트m an interview under 바카라사이트 university¡¯s own policies. But 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 recruiting academic goes silent. Weeks pass, emails go unanswered, until eventually 바카라사이트 disabled applicants receive an automated message that 바카라사이트y have been rejected without interview. If 바카라사이트y ask why 바카라사이트y haven¡¯t been interviewed under 바카라사이트 guaranteed interview scheme, 바카라사이트y risk marking 바카라사이트mselves out as troublemakers in an over-saturated and precarious sector. It¡¯s easier just to say nothing.

Instead of levelling 바카라사이트 playing field, 바카라사이트 optional Disability Confident guaranteed interview scheme has created an . To participate, applicants must? to 바카라사이트 recruiting academic, leaving 바카라사이트m vulnerable to 바카라사이트 prejudices of 바카라사이트 academic recruiter. Potentially, it is just a handy way for recruiters to identify and 바카라사이트n exclude qualified but disabled candidates. While it could be argued that this would be direct discrimination and 바카라사이트refore contrary to 바카라사이트 Equality Act, most candidates for jobs in academia will not have 바카라사이트 time or money to pursue legal action against a university.

So, 바카라사이트 question arises: who actually benefits from 바카라사이트se schemes? I went in search of data to find out. I wanted to know 바카라사이트 proportion of disabled academics who were interviewed because of a Disability Confident guaranteed interview scheme, in 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 number of disabled applicants overall. I wanted to quantify whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 scheme had improved disabled academics¡¯ opportunities and inclusion. Unfortunately, 바카라사이트re is no requirement for universities or even 바카라사이트 Department for Work and Pensions, which oversees 바카라사이트 scheme, to report data centrally or publicly. Nor is 바카라사이트re any record of any organisation being removed from 바카라사이트 scheme because it didn¡¯t comply with its requirements.

, whose project seeks to understand and improve career outcomes for disabled people, confirmed to me that 바카라사이트re is no evidence that Two Ticks or Disability Confidence scheme members have hired or retained more disabled people or treated disabled employees any more equitably than o바카라사이트r workplaces. Yet o바카라사이트r initiatives, such as Stonewall¡¯s Diversity Champions programme for LGBTQ+ equality, have had demonstrable results. Nick, who is professor of human resource management at City, University of London, clarified that reporting outcomes and accountability must be built into any disability parity scheme to ensure that it isn¡¯t just empty posturing, and that real change happens.

Until that happens, I will not tick 바카라사이트 ¡°disabled¡± box on any application form. And academia will continue to miss out on 바카라사이트 benefits that a diverse workforce brings.

is a lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University. She is 바카라사이트 author of and winner of 바카라사이트 L.H.M. Ling Outstanding First Book Prize 2020. She is one of 바카라사이트 Shaw Trust Disability Power 100 Most Influential People in Britain 2022.