Controversial Appointment Raises Questions About Equality Oversight

Dr. Mary-Ann Stephenson, head of a feminist think-tank, faced intense scrutiny last month during her Parliamentary hearing for the position of Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). She was questioned by 17 members from both houses on critical issues such as race, disability, Islamophobia, and transgender rights. These topics are among the most contentious and significant in current UK society, yet her responses reportedly fell short of expectations.

Following the hearing, the chairs of the two committees that interviewed her, Sarah Owen, a Labour MP, and David Alton, a former Liberal Democrat peer, formally opposed her appointment. They claimed that Dr. Stephenson “did not provide sufficient evidence” of the necessary skills and leadership experience for the role. Their letter highlighted concerns about her lack of “suitable depth of understanding” regarding pivotal issues, including race and disability.

Among those raising alarms were prominent figures such as Baroness Lawrence, mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, and human rights lawyer Baroness Kennedy. One committee member described the encounter as reminiscent of interviewing a middle manager rather than a candidate with the vision required to navigate the complex challenges facing the country. “This job needs a strong person with clear leadership and values when there’s so much divisiveness,” remarked another member.

Despite these objections, Bridget Phillipson, the Minister for Education and Equalities, appointed Dr. Stephenson as Chair of the EHRC with “utmost confidence.” This decision has prompted questions about the role and independence of the EHRC, an influential body with significant enforcement powers over citizens, businesses, and institutions.

The implications of this appointment extend beyond the perceived arrogance of a minister. Critics argue that if the EHRC merely acts as an extension of government policy, its effectiveness as an independent watchdog is seriously undermined. There are growing concerns that the ongoing debate around transgender rights has overshadowed broader equality issues, particularly as Labour grapples with its response to the rise of the Reform UK party.

Dr. Stephenson’s recent history suggests that her appointment may be rooted in her active engagement with “gender-critical” perspectives. She has publicly aligned with figures critical of trans activism, which raises fears about her ability to advocate for marginalized groups. This alarm was reflected in the committee’s letter, which noted her vague responses to direct inquiries, including whether trans individuals should be subjected to harassment.

The EHRC, under current Chair Kishwer Falkner, has faced criticism for its perceived partiality in the ongoing debates about gender and rights. Following a Supreme Court ruling in April that defined “woman” in biological terms, Falkner took a stringent stance, asserting that trans women should not participate in women’s sports or have access to female-only facilities. This interpretation has been contested by legal experts, including former Supreme Court judge Jonathan Sumption, who argue that it misrepresents the ruling.

The EHRC is now developing guidance for public bodies regarding these issues, but the consultation period was notably brief, lasting only six weeks. Falkner, who was appointed during the tenure of former Minister for Women and Equalities Liz Truss, has been accused of steering the commission towards an agenda that aligns with government ideology, raising concerns about the organization’s independence.

Critics within the EHRC and beyond have voiced disappointment regarding the commission’s failure to effectively advocate for people with disabilities. Alarmingly, the commission has a history of inadequately addressing the needs of the 1.5 million individuals with learning disabilities in the UK, who remain largely excluded from mainstream society. Earlier this year, concerns were raised about the EHRC’s reluctance to intervene in the practice of locking individuals with autism and learning disabilities in secure psychiatric units, despite widespread condemnation of such actions.

A freedom of information request revealed that Falkner made no references to disabilities in her first year as chair, during a time when the pandemic highlighted significant discrimination faced by these communities. Over more than five years, she mentioned disability only 14 times, including just one reference to autism, and failed to address learning disabilities.

This stark contrast between the EHRC’s vigorous stance on transgender rights and its lack of engagement with disability issues raises critical questions about its role. As the commission prepares for new leadership under Dr. Stephenson, many are calling for a reevaluation of its priorities and functions.

Given the current climate of increasing societal division, it may be time to consider restructuring the EHRC. Some suggest re-establishing separate bodies to focus on racial equality and disabled rights rather than allowing crucial issues to be overshadowed by ongoing cultural conflicts. The need for a genuinely independent regulator is more pressing than ever, as the EHRC must start living up to its mandate to advocate for equality, or risk losing its legitimacy altogether.