Original essay question / assignment brief
GENDER ANALYSIS OF THE UNIVERSITY’S POLICY OF COMPLUSORY EVENING CLASSES
Gender analysis is the study of possible differences between women and men, in all their diversity, in terms of their needs, roles in society and families, access to resources, decision-making and participation in political, economic and social processes (European Commission, 1998). Basically, gender analysis is the starting point for gender mainstreaming . This essay seeks to offer a gender analysis into a new University policy requiring students to attend compulsory evening tutorials from 6pm to 8pm. Beyond highlighting different needs of students, possible opportunities and constraints, the essay also offers proposes modification to make it gender responsive and inclusive.
Schooling is one experience that many people worldwide use to prepare its subjects for the future. But schooling is not always a good experience for everyone . At face value, attending evening classes can look so key to support students’ academic performance. Very likely, it is less challenging for boys to navigate through this. The beneficiaries of the re-admission policy , are at an obvious disadvantage.
Basically, any equal treatment theorist , would not hesitate to endorse this arrangement. However, a closer look through the gender perspective reveals a different picture. While it could mean a normal lone evening walk to school for a boy, it could be unsafe and risky voyage for a girl with exposes high risk of street harassment, theft and gender-based violence. Many parents would significantly be less likely to allow the girls to commute as compared to boys. In many African households, traditional gender roles dictate that girls handle evening chores such as preparing dinner and caring for the sibling.
Consequently, the arrangement becomes a source of indirect discrimination. In 2003 the Mozambican government adopted a misogynist order which required school officials to transfer pregnant girls and adolescent mothers out of regular daytime classroom into night shift program. While they demonstrated commitment to the UN’ Education for All (EFA), the order effectively cemented and authorized discrimination against these female students in the national education system. Controversially, it proved to be challenging for countryside students leading to high drop-outs rates and missed opportunities. At the core of it is meeting the needs of the female gender. Today in Malawi, there are twice as many boys enrolled as girl schools as girls, and in rural areas are up to six times more boys . Interrupted attendances due to completing demands, unfriendly infrastructure and too many hours affect academic performance and overall student well.
Instead, it would take more than mere organizing of classes to make them gender-responsive. We can evidently see that the females face different barriers to attending and benefiting from this arrangement. I would therefore propose to take advantage of the digital age and conduct lessons via digital platform, while embracing the differences that exist between the sexes.
Finally, the notion of de jure and de facto equality was the basic for the selection of the policy. Through the de jure equality lens, they saw a homogenous group with significant differences. However, the adoption of de facto equality gives us a clear picture that is a reflection of the what is on the ground. It is therefore more significant to consider the bigger picture when developing intervention that are gender-responsive to the fears and needs both genders.
In conclusion, the gender analysis shows the policy overlooked the intersectional factors that come into play. Despite intending to help the students academically, the intervention lacked the gender-responsiveness. It treated students as one homogeneous group without taking into consideration their different gender needs and social constraints. This is therefore a discriminatory policy against female students. However, some modifications like eliminating safety risks and holding online classes can help in gender mainstreaming success.
# Gender Analysis of the University’s Policy of Compulsory Evening Classes
## Introduction
This essay provides a gender analysis of a hypothetical university policy that makes evening tutorials, held from 6pm to 8pm, compulsory for all students. While appearing to treat all students equally, this policy may have a disproportionately negative impact on female students. This analysis will argue that the policy is likely to amount to indirect sex discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The argument will be developed by first outlining the legal framework for indirect discrimination in England and Wales. It will then apply this framework to the policy, focusing on the particular disadvantages it creates for women concerning personal safety and caring responsibilities. Finally, the essay will consider the university’s potential justification for the policy and propose modifications to make it more inclusive and gender-responsive.
## The Legal Framework for Indirect Discrimination
In England and Wales, discrimination is primarily governed by the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010). The Act prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of protected characteristics, which include sex. While direct discrimination involves treating someone less favourably because of their sex, indirect discrimination is more subtle. It occurs when a policy or rule that applies to everyone has the effect of disadvantaging a particular group who share a protected characteristic.
Section 19 of the EA 2010 defines indirect discrimination. It arises where an organisation applies a ‘provision, criterion or practice’ (PCP) which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic. For a claim to succeed, it must be shown that the PCP puts, or would put, persons with whom the claimant shares a characteristic (in this case, women) at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom the claimant does not share it (men). It must also be shown that the PCP puts, or would put, the claimant at that disadvantage, and that the organisation cannot show the PCP to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2011). This defence is crucial, as it allows for policies that have a discriminatory effect if they can be objectively justified.
## Disproportionate Impact on Female Students
Applying the legal test to the university’s policy, the requirement to attend compulsory evening tutorials is clearly a ‘provision, criterion or practice’ (PCP). The central issue is whether this PCP puts female students at a ‘particular disadvantage’ compared to male students. There are strong arguments to suggest that it does, primarily relating to safety and societal expectations around care.
Firstly, women are disproportionately affected by concerns for their personal safety, particularly when travelling alone after dark. Statistical evidence consistently shows that women experience and fear harassment and violence in public spaces more than men do (ONS, 2022). A policy that requires female students to travel to and from the university campus during late evening hours could expose them to a heightened risk of harm, or at least a significant fear of it. This creates a barrier to their education that is not experienced by their male counterparts to the same extent. A male student may view a walk home at 8:30pm as routine, whereas for a female student, it can be a source of considerable anxiety, potentially deterring her from attending or causing significant distress.
Secondly, women continue to bear a disproportionate burden of caring responsibilities within society, both for children and other dependents (Fawcett Society, 2018). The 6pm to 8pm timeframe for tutorials directly clashes with typical evening childcare routines, such as collecting children from after-school clubs, preparing evening meals, and bedtime. While some male students will also have caring responsibilities, data indicates that these duties fall more heavily on women. Therefore, a compulsory evening schedule places female students with children or other caring duties at a significant disadvantage, forcing them to choose between their academic obligations and their family responsibilities. This can interrupt their studies and negatively affect their academic performance and overall wellbeing.
## The Justification Defence and Gender-Responsive Alternatives
A university facing a challenge under the EA 2010 would likely argue that the policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The legitimate aim could be, for example, to enhance the academic support available to all students or to make efficient use of university facilities and staff time. These are, in principle, valid aims for an educational institution.
However, the policy must also be a *proportionate* way to achieve them. Proportionality involves balancing the discriminatory impact of the measure against the importance of the aim. A court would consider whether a less discriminatory alternative was available that could have achieved the same objective (Deakin and Morris, 2012). In this case, it is arguable that the compulsory nature of the evening classes is disproportionate. The university could achieve its aim of providing extra academic support through less discriminatory means. For example, it could offer the same tutorials at different times of the day, adopt a hybrid model allowing students to attend either in person or online, or simply make the recordings of the tutorials available for all students to access remotely. The availability of these digital technologies makes a rigid, compulsory in-person policy difficult to justify, as its benefits are outweighed by the significant disadvantages it imposes on a specific group.
## Conclusion
In conclusion, a gender analysis of the university’s policy on compulsory evening tutorials reveals that, despite its appearance of neutrality, it is likely to be unlawfully discriminatory. The policy constitutes a PCP that places female students at a particular disadvantage due to legitimate safety concerns and the societal reality of gendered caring roles. While the university’s aim to improve academic performance is legitimate, the means chosen are unlikely to be considered proportionate when less discriminatory and equally effective alternatives, such as online provision, are readily available. The policy treats a diverse student body as a single, homogenous group, failing to account for their different needs and constraints. To be truly inclusive and compliant with equality law, the university must modify the policy to eliminate these barriers and ensure that all students have a genuine opportunity to benefit from the academic support on offer.
## References
- Deakin, S. and Morris, G. (2012) Labour Law. 6th edn. Hart Publishing.
- Equality Act 2010, c. 15.
- Equality and Human Rights Commission (2011) Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations. TSO.
- Fawcett Society (2018) Sex and Power 2018. Fawcett Society.
- Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2022) Perceptions of personal safety and experiences of harassment. ONS.
