As long as we are correct in our assumption that the Panel who are doing
the recruitment and selection are adequately aware of how they should be
discharging of their responsibilities, accountabilities and liabilities
under the requirements of the RRAA, to mention but one area of E&D
requirement. That awareness has to be based, not on a "trust me I'm a
doctor" attitude but evidential training and/or support strategy that is
based on real staff need and institutional policy and action plan
requirements. There are RRAA statutory requirements like acknowledging
the needs of race equality relevant functioning, the burden of proof and
vicarious liability, to cite a few areas of particular institutional
response, that have to be considered. This was the main thrust of my
second paragraph.
Four years after Stephen Lawrence, we still have colleagues in some of
our institutions (and this includes Governors and Senior and Middle
Managers) who not only still do not realize that they are working within
some very highly race equality relevant functions but also have still to
understand what the General and Specific Duty statutory ramifications
are for them as staff within those functions. These functions, like
recruitment and selection, are areas that are well defined in our
Policies and Action Plans, as areas that will need to function in a
particular RRAA qualified way. How this chimes with what institutional
practice we deliver on the ground is the crucial point that the second
paragraph in my original email below, makes.
Those institutions that are responding appropriately need to be
commended but those that are not, need to be reminded of the Stephen
Lawrence Inquiry findings on institutional racism, that it can and does
occur in many ways and forms and can be witting or unwitting. Without
evidence of what, why and how we are doing relative to institutional
practice, we are taken back to the pre-Stephen Lawrence era and the
assumption that we cannot possibly be doing anything that is unlawfully
discriminatory against anyone, therefore we are not. This was the main
reason why the original Race Relations ACT 1976 had to be amended to the
RRAA 2000, in order to impose a positive General Duty on institutions,
which needs to be seen to be responded to, through the incorporation of
the Specific Duties within all those institutional policies, functions,
procedures, practices and initiatives that are qualified to be race
equality relevant.
All functions that are deemed to be race equality relevant, will need to
be seen to be implemented in such a manner that institutional practice
can be seen to be, not just non but anti racist, in a pro-active manner.
How do we then make sure that all those who are involved are not only
aware of this but have their needs established in order for them to be
supported and/or trained appropriately for them to be able to do their
work in the required manner.
Hope this clarifies my point.
Regards
Mannie.
-----Original Message-----
From: HE Administrators equal opportunities list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dicker, Berry J
Sent: 21 May 2004 08:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Staff Recruitment Monitoring
I think that is covered by our checking the shortlisting to see if and
why people who satisfied all the criteria have been excluded, as
explained in earlier email. Not quite sure what you mean by second point
support in the institution is of course important. Berry
-----Original Message-----
From: Mannie Kusemamuriwo
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 May 2004 17:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Staff Recruitment Monitoring
What if they then feel that they have subsequently suffered some form of
unfavourable treatment and/or detriment, when they have not completed
it. How will the institution satisfy the "litmus test" of having done
everything reasonable and practicable to try and discharge its
obligations under the "Burden of Proof and Vicarious Liability"
requirements, if a racism issue is raised? We also need to consider the
staff involved who have a right to expect the appropriate support from
their institution. Will they have been given that, in this situation, as
they are the ones who could be directly named.
It is not so much what the obligations are for the applicants but what
the statutory requirements are, complex as they may be, for the
institution. As long as we, from an institutional point of view, can
show that we have done all we can, then we can rest assured that we have
done what any good institution could/should have done. Otherwise we need
to ask further questions and hopefully get the right answers.
Mannie.
-----Original Message-----
From: HE Administrators equal opportunities list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Smith, Geoff
Sent: 20 May 2004 16:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Staff Recruitment Monitoring
It is always interesting when someone thinks through an issue and goes
against conventional wisdom/practice as a result.
Presumably it is not obligatory that applicants complete that part of
the form and they suffer no detriment if they don't complete
it.
Geoff
*************************************
Geoff Smith
Assistant Secretary
University Secretariat
Sheffield Hallam University
City Campus
Howard Street
Sheffield
S1 1WB
Tel: 0114 225 3854
Fax: 0114 225 3498
Email: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: HE Administrators equal opportunities list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dicker, Berry J
Sent: 20 May 2004 15:52
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Staff Recruitment Monitoring
Thank you for the feedback Richard, if I am the 'unspecified' one then
let me be clear. Our monitoring is integral to the
application form, not tear off or detached. We take the view that much
EO information can be gleaned from the form any way,
recruiting panels should be engaging positively with difference, it
should be up front, and that the argument that the process
must have been fair as the monitoring was removed can be specious.
Berry
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Burrow [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 May 2004 14:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Staff Recruitment Monitoring
Dear All,
Thanks to those who responded to my query. The results are as follows:
12 responses received from HEIs
11/12 have a separate or tear-off monitoring section (6 separate, 4
tear-off, 1 unspecified)
11/12 return all applications to a central HR function ( 1 excludes
weekly)
The one that does not return all apps centrally requires the receiving
dep't to complete a detailed summary of the applicant
profiles.
Hope that is of interest - it gives a clear indication of how the sector
is approaching this crucial function.
Richard Burrow
Assistant Director of Human Resources
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Tel: 0191 222 6306
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
you have
received this email in error please notify the system manager. Please
note that any
views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not
necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, the recipient
should check this
email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company
accepts no liability
for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
|