The secrecy of the scheme

Glinner reports a win:

The Information Commissioner has ordered the University of Oxford to disclose the scores and feedback it received from Stonewall as part of the lobby group’s controversial Workplace Equality Index scheme.

Of course their scheme isn’t about equality at all. Saying men are women has nothing to do with equality.

Following a Freedom of Information appeal undertaken as part of the “Don’t Submit to Stonewall” campaign initiated by Legal Feminist and Sex Matters, the Information Commissioner’s Office has written a hard-hitting decision that strikes at the secrecy of the scheme.

Thank you Legal Feminist and Sex Matters!

Stonewall requires organisations to sign a contract forbidding them to reveal either the feedback it gives them, or the actions it recommends they take to win more points. It says revealing such information would undermine its commercial interests.

So it’s all about the money. Good to know.

The Information Commissioner’s Office criticised the secretive scheme, saying that “whilst Stonewall is a charity, it is a charity with an agenda to promote. Whilst many may well agree with that agenda, it is not one that is universally accepted. Moreover, even those organisations which do enjoy broad support should not expect their actions to go free from scrutiny.”

“By associating themselves with Stonewall’s brand, employers are bound to chase its approval – if their policies do not match up with Stonewall’s expectations, they will achieve a lower score and hence a lower ranking. That means that Stonewall is able to exercise, through its Index and its Diversity Champions Programme, a significant degree of influence over the policies that participating members operate. Such influence can be used for good and for bad.”

And who made Stonewall the god of all this in the first place?

In particular, it highlighted the requirement to undertake social-media activity promoting Stonewall’s agenda:

“On the face of it, this seems like a fairly benign requirement but, when it is recognised that Stonewall’s definition of ‘LGBT equality’ is not one which is universally accepted, the potential exists for such a provision to be misused. Stonewall has recently clashed with women’s rights groups over the recognition and rights of transgender people – therefore there would be a public interest in knowing whether an organisation simply needs to signal that it is welcoming of members of the LGBTQ+ community or whether it needs to go further and denounce those whose views do not mirror those of Stonewall.”

Yes once you know what Stonewall’s agenda is, such a requirement seems the opposite of benign.

3 Responses to “The secrecy of the scheme”