糖心Vlog

Public still supports EDI work in UK universities, finds poll

Little enthusiasm for US-style crackdown as voters back initiatives such as ‘broadening the curriculum’

Published on
九月 25, 2025
Last updated
九月 25, 2025
People sit on steps painted in the rainbow flag colours in support of Pride, Paddington, London. To illustrate that the public still supports EDI work in UK universities.
Source: Quintina Valero/Getty Images

The British public is generally supportive of universities teaching a broader range of perspectives and targeting particular groups for admissions, according to new polling that found little enthusiasm for a US-style purge of equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) initiatives.

Amid increasing attacks on EDI?in the UK and across the Atlantic, the thinktank More in Common, along with researchers from the University of Oxford and UCL set out to discover whether attitudes among the public had changed since a similar study was?published in March 2024.

The latest research?finds that, overall, a majority continue to think EDI is a good thing, but scepticism has grown, with 52 per cent now likely to see EDI positively compared with 62 per cent previously.

But a minority of three in 10 say they would view businesses, universities or government more positively if they cut back on EDI, with most saying it would make no difference.

Regarding?universities – often the battleground for these types of debates – the public appeared split on various interventions.

The polling finds that people are more likely to say EDI does not restrict free speech?on campus – but a significant minority (30 per cent) believe that it does. More than half (56 per cent) think EDI policies do not undermine academic excellence.

Most support universities providing diversity training for academics, mirroring a similar attitude towards EDI in all workplaces.

But on policies specific to higher education, there was more debate. The public supports diversifying the curriculum when it was framed as “broadening the curriculum to include more perspectives from non-European countries” but less so when it was branded “decolonisation”.

The public is slightly more likely than not to support universities declining to host speakers who might express offensive views. Thirty-seven per cent agree institutions should do this compared with 28 per cent who disagree.

There was also a split on having targets for academics and students from minority backgrounds, and?most opposed scholarships?specifically for ethnic minority applicants.


Campus spotlight guide: What next for EDI? Protecting equality of opportunity in HE


There was more support for targets on women in academic positions and increasing access for students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Roughly one in three took a neutral position on many of these questions, which the authors said could reflect a reluctance to weigh in on debates about what is seen as a controversial topic or could represent genuine indifference.

“Those who did not themselves go to university are significantly more likely to say they are unsure about questions around EDI-related activity in universities,” the report says.

Tim Soutphommasane, chief diversity officer at Oxford and co-author of the report said that “properly understood, EDI in universities is about creating the conditions for academic excellence”.

“And it should go hand in hand with a commitment to free speech. As this study highlights, there is majority support for a range of initiatives aimed at creating a more inclusive culture within universities, and most (56%) think EDI policies don’t undermine academic excellence.”

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
Please
or
to read this article.

Reader's comments (4)

Wwll the problem with all this is of course EDI in principle is a good thing and fair-minded people will tend to support it unless and until they haveactually experience the incompetent implementation of poorly thought through policies that have pernicious and chilling effects in the workplace and are often no more than virtue-signalling. As that person wrote recently in THES: I am all for EDI in theory but in practice it reminds us of Voltaire's famous bon mot about the Holy Roman Empire: "It was neither holy, roman, nor an empire".
"Tim Soutphommasane, chief diversity officer at Oxford and co-author of the report said that 'properly understood, EDI in universities is about creating the conditions for academic excellence'." Well he would, would he not, it's his job to say that, he would look rather foolish if he said otherwise given he is paid to enforce EDI. I think this rather gives the game away about this report, its objectivity, and its value.
"Tim Soutphommasane, chief diversity officer at Oxford and co-author of the report said that 'properly understood, EDI in universities is about creating the conditions for academic excellence'. With the greatest respect, what on earth does Tim, a Human Relations "professional" know of "academic excellence" and how to create or foster it? Presumably, academic excellence is cteated by the employment of academics who are excellent in their research fields, not those who conform to an arbitrary employment policy.
new
Tim's assumption here and those who think like him is that somehow a teaching and research staffing that conforms with the existing social demographic norms for gender, sexuality and ethnicity is thus somehow bound to foster acedemic teaching and research excellence. A staffing that over represents minority groups would also presumably by this argument inceease research excellence in an institution? Now of course no-one in their right minds would want a unit where one demographic is massively over represented to the exclusion of others, but if you want to recruit the best teachers, researchers and academics generally then you have to consider first and foremost the excellence of their research and teaching surely. A diverse staff is certainly to be desired but this has no obvious connection with research excellence per se and ehile it might foster social justice agendas will not nevessarily address the criteria of research excellence. Tim, I imagine, like most colleafues doing this job has no essential knowledge of what constitutes academic excellence and does not possess the commodity themself (not a part of theor job description), but they believe they can determine what it is and lay down their own rules for its creation and sustenance. This is the problem with HR and EDI staff, the EDI agenda empowers them to dictate to the rest of us how we should construe academic excellence and perfomance, elevating their position from basically support staff (an essential and valuable category) to persons with actual executive authority over areas where their ignorance is pretty total. I think this is why the EDI agenda as it has become formulated has become so pervasive. It's basically about power and control and the effacement of academnic expertise by those who could never hope to achieve that distinction in the first place.
ADVERTISEMENT