Union Defends Stance in Gender-Critical Academics’ Discrimination Case

Tribunal Rejects Claims of Bias Against Lecturers Who Directed Controversial Film

A UK employment tribunal has dismissed discrimination claims brought by two university academics who alleged their union unfairly targeted them after creating a film perceived by some as critical of transgender identity. The ruling underscores ongoing tensions surrounding free speech and inclusivity on university campuses.

Film Sparks Protests and Union Response

Dr. Deirdre O’Neill, a lecturer at Hertfordshire University, and Michael Wayne, a professor at Brunel University, directed “Adult Human Female,” a film examining arguments against the assertion that “trans women are women.” The University and College Union (UCU) publicly criticized the film, stating it represented an attack on trans identity. Protests erupted at screenings held at the University of Edinburgh, with demonstrators reportedly blocking access and directing insults at attendees.

Documents presented to the tribunal detailed how protesters twice disrupted screenings of the film. During one event, between 100 and 150 individuals prevented those wanting to view the film from entering the venue. The UCU Edinburgh branch president, Grant Buttars, subsequently celebrated the disruption as a “victory.”

Tribunal Finds Union Acted Within Rights

The academics argued that the UCU’s public opposition and encouragement of protests amounted to unlawful discrimination based on their gender-critical beliefs – the belief that sex is immutable. However, Employment Judge Laidler ruled that the union was “entitled” to act as it did, emphasizing its responsibility to protect members who might be offended or feel unsafe.

“The reason why the UCU acted as it did was because it believed that other members of its union would be offended by some of the content in the film and could be put at risk and that, under its policies, the union was entitled and indeed required to protect them as best it could.”

—Judge Laidler

The judge acknowledged the “fine line” between criticizing a film and criticizing its creators, but determined the film was a “manifestation” of the academics’ beliefs. Dr. O’Neill maintained during the proceedings that the film contained “no hate.”

Growing Debate on Gender Identity and Free Speech

This case arrives amid a broader societal debate about gender identity and the limits of free speech. According to a 2024 report by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), 75% of college students say they worry about offending others when discussing controversial topics (FIRE Report 2024). This climate of self-censorship highlights the challenges universities face in balancing inclusivity with academic freedom.

Union Welcomes Decision

Mary Senior, a Scotland official for the UCU, expressed satisfaction with the tribunal’s ruling. “This is a sensible and commonsense decision, and we thank Judge Laidler and the tribunal for their careful deliberations.” She added that a trade union should be able to peacefully protest material presented on campus that it believes infringes on the human rights of others.

The tribunal’s decision is likely to fuel further discussion about the boundaries of acceptable discourse on gender identity within academic institutions and beyond.