Cambridge University pitches “Valuing Diversity” as its most stringent requirement for hiring and promotion within a broader Behavioural Attributes Framework (BAF). Introduced over 15 years ago, its language has not been changed since. However, it has thought policing aspects incompatible with freedom of academic thought and speech. Both ChatGPT and Gemini consider its enforcement unlawful. Cambridge is worried, as one year ago it added a legal disclaimer declaring the whole BAF under review and warning against misuse. However, it has not rescinded the policy, likely in deference to DEI proponents. This article sketches the core issues.
As explained here, “Valuing Diversity” is the signature plank of Cambridge’s commitment to DEI (EDI in British parlance). It is one of the eight types of skills that the BAF evaluates for jobs, and the only type for which the only acceptable level is A. Here is what an A entails:
Considers and respects the ideas, circumstances and feelings of others. Treats everyone with fairness and respect, adhering to the principles of diversity and inclusion.
· Promotes an inclusive environment which values equality of opportunity and diversity.
· Role models the highest standards of behaviour.
· Challenges or reports inappropriate attitudes, language and behaviour that is abusive, aggressive or discriminatory.
· Acknowledges and respects a broad range of social and cultural customs, beliefs and values within the law.
· Demonstrates mutual respect tolerance and integrity.
· Listens to and respects others’ views and opinions.
The most alarming feature is the call to challenge or report “inappropriate attitudes”. Let’s deconstruct this. Attitude is a psychological bridge between belief and behavior. Since UK/US law generally tries to judge behavior without impinging on beliefs, a natural test for inappropriate attitudes would be “behavior that is abusive, aggressive or discriminatory”. But the BAF frames it as an independent transgression. What attitudes are inappropriate? Neither ChatGPT nor Gemini could find any definition in Cambridge HR records, but their summaries of HR interview guidance suggest something along the lines of “insufficient enthusiasm for DEI causes”. This interpretation is supported by neighboring phrases about “adhering to the principles of diversity and inclusion” and “promot[ing] an inclusive environment which values […] diversity”.
ChatGPT and Gemini view enforcement as almost certainly unlawful for two reasons. First, recent UK case law—e.g., the Forstater ruling—has in Gemini’s words “heavily penalized employers for treating a lack of ideological enthusiasm as a disciplinary offense”. Second, it violates the free speech guidance of the OfS, England’s regulator of higher education, which insists that restrictions “avoid vague language” and “incorporate objective tests where appropriate”. The OfS explicitly warns against required commitments to DEI or “social justice“.
A second problem concerns the required “respect” for the “ideas”, “beliefs”, “views” and “opinions” of others. This was never meant to be all-sided; campus activists openly cited dissident speakers’ alleged lack of respect as pretext for shutting them down. But that language itself was officially rejected by Cambridge’s governing body (the Regent House) in 2020. Its defense of free speech demanded “tolerance” rather than respect, e.g., no active interference with or harassment of a speaker one disagree with.
I asked LLMs how to make the “Valuing Diversity” plank legally compliant. ChatGPT suggested renaming it “Fair Treatment and Professional Background”, with all references to “inappropriate attitudes” and DEI dropped and a freedom of speech safeguard added. Gemini suggested a more radical solution, which I endorse:
Gemini’s Recommendation
While a surgical rewrite can bring the attribute into legal compliance, jettisoning the “Valuing Diversity” category entirely is the more logically coherent option.
If you strip away the requirements for internal “attitudes,” the mandate to “respect” ideas you disagree with, the compelled “promotion” of EDI, and the ideological screening for “appreciation,” what is actually left? The only remaining elements are:
· Do not harass or discriminate against people.
· Communicate clearly and professionally with everyone.
· Work collaboratively to achieve institutional goals.
These behaviors are already comprehensively covered by the BAF’s other existing attributes: Communication, Relationship Building, and Achieving Results.
Retaining a separate, mandatory “Diversity” metric once it has been stripped of its ideological components renders it entirely redundant. Conversely, keeping it as a distinct category inevitably tempts hiring panels to drift back into assessing a candidate’s worldview rather than their professional competence. Jettisoning the attribute altogether and relying on standard codes of conduct to enforce anti-discrimination laws provides the strongest protection against regulatory intervention and ideological mission creep.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.