In Genderwang’s last post, she wrote about how changes at the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) have resulted in its transformation from a democratic organisation to an oligarchy:
Here, she and I show briefly how one report, commissioned and actioned in just a few brief months, killed democracy at the RCSLT and left it wide open for further EDI ideological capture and focus.
And that affects your children, your Dad with dementia, your Gran who’s had a Stroke amongst many others, many of whom are treated by speech therapists on the NHS paid for by your taxes.
And just wait until you find out the speech therapy vacancy rate!
Kiki Maurey describes herself as an “Executive / Leadership Coach-Mentor” and was appointed following interview by the RCSLT to help them achieve a “more diverse board”.
“Toward a more diverse RCSLT Board”
Simply the aim of the exercise has an ideological approach hard-baked into it; the wish to increase diversity of characteristics by focussing on the characteristics themselves, rather than any other evidence-based approaches.
The appointment process, interviews and report all took place within a very short period of time. Here’s the timeline:
21 August 2020: Deadline for competitive proposal
9 November 2020: Interview
19 November 2020: Review commenced by Kiki Maurey
23 November - 11 December 2020: Maurey interviews 19 people
17 March 2021: Report is published
The timeframe from the Review commencing to publication of the Report was just 82 business days.
The report in all its glory is available here. And here’s what RCSLT state on the report’s webpage Progressing our Work on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:
A key part of our work has been to look at the equality and diversity of our Board. Towards the end of 2020 we commissioned Kiki Maurey OBE MBA to undertake an independent review to help us identify what we needed to do. Kiki presented her robust report and recommendations in March 2021 and the Board held a workshop to agree next steps that same month. The action plan was agreed at the Board meeting in July 2021 and is well into implementation.
And
Kiki’s report identified 14 barriers preventing people from under-represented groups, such as members who are Black, Asian or have a minority ethnic background, members from the LGBTQIA community, or members with a disability from applying for RCSLT Board positions
In the report itself, we’re given a flavour of the report’s bias from the outset:
In an acknowledgement of the significance of the Black Lives Matter movement, I have contributed extra days in preparing this analysis and report, in memory of yet another brutal police killing of US African American citizen George Floyd in May 2020 that really brought the BLM movement to global attention.
and
Perhaps the best phrase comes from a placard held by a young Black Lives Matter protester in summer 2020: “George Floyd isn’t a “wake up call”. The same alarm has been ringing since 1619 y’all just keep hitting snooze.”
Exactly the kind of thing the RCSLT wish to hear.
Barriers
Here are the 14 barriers reportedly preventing people from under-represented groups:
Lack of diversity in the profession
Lack of access to the right network and support
Lack of confidence
Barriers of difference
Unspoken Board culture and exclusivity
Not knowing what’s involved in trustee roles
Impact of unconscious bias
The Board recruitment process
The election process
Effects and experience of societal and institutional racism, and the multiple pressures SLTs from protected groups face
Lack of ‘likeness’, ie diversity at Board level, perceived ‘fit’ and issues of psychological safety
Lack of opportunity, no clear route to the Board
Lack of knowledge about the role and impact of the Board, and of the trustees
Poor communications and engagement from the Board
Diversity in the profession
No comparison between the UK population and the profession exists in the report. So we did some research and here are the findings.
Women
A profession that’s 96% female is not a bad thing at all. And given such a strong showing by women, it indicates something about sex difference and interest. Because there are no barriers to men joining the profession. There never has been. As Falk and Hermle (2018) discovered, the more that women have equal opportunities, the more they differ from men in their preferences. This is choice-making in action in an egalitarian country; more women would prefer to be speech therapists than men.
If anything, this should prompt the RCSLT to research and provide support in women’s health, pregnancy and maternity to ensure job satisfaction, retention and consistent service provision.
After all, women built it. In a piece on the RCSLT website that manages to celebrate women:
Many of the pioneers of the speech and language therapy profession, including all 18 of the RCSLT founder fellows, were women. International Women’s Day, recognised on 8 March, provides a great opportunity to celebrate our place as a strong, female-led profession, and the women who helped to make it that way.
LGB&TQ
Well frankly, they are already over-represented in the profession (suspect there’s quite a bit of Q going on). Again, there are zero barriers to anyone joining the profession who is lesbian, gay, bisexual or however they wish to identify. It’s hard to think of a more accepting and kind profession.
Asian, Black & Other
When it comes to non-white SLTs, the difference is 1% fewer in the profession than in the country as a whole. ONE percent. Frankly, well done the profession. Yet RCSLT felt a need to prostrate itself before the altar of BLM.
A speech therapist we spoke to reports,
Some time ago, it could be any time before 2009, RCSLT was concerned about low recruitment of non-white and male students on to SLT pre-qualification courses compared to other AHP professions.
I can't find the study but it was used by the union to argue for better wages and terms and conditions of service.
IIRC The main reasons non-white and male school leavers opted for other AHP professions rather than SLT were that the academic entry requirements were higher whilst the wages and TOC of service were perceived to be poorer plus a general misunderstanding of what SLTs do. Family aspirations for non-white students were that they would go in to medicine or a profession closely identified with medicine as a "second best". With Asian students there was also a family or cultural history and expectation of going in to Pharmacy in particular, often to continue a family business.
Age
There are no major concerns around age and to be honest, well done all those women with families for continuing in the profession despite all the difficulties of juggling home and work life.
Disability
Where there is significant work to be done, it is on supporting speech therapists with a Disability. That’s a 10% difference.
Another healthcare professional, who read the report tells us:
Basically I'm reading (American) “cultural” change management methodology overlaid with a massive dollop of Critical Race Theory thrown in. It seems to me that it’s going so far to be "inclusive" its discriminating against anyone who doesn’t fall into their identified groups.
and
Also, where’s the data on the patient demographic? Boards should have representation at the appropriate % (if poss) of the demographic that they deliver a service too. That would of course include parents/carers of children.
And s/he raises concerns over the understanding of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to Maurey’s statement on page 14 which states,
Firstly, the upcoming Board vacancies should be targeted at BAME members, LGBTQ+ members and members with a disability.
Positive action is about taking specific steps to improve equality and inclusion, for example to increase the number of disabled people in senior / Board roles in which they are currently underrepresented, or indeed non-existent.
Such positive action is allowable under the Equality Act 2010
and on page 17
I’d go so far as to specifically INVITE applications from known committed BAME members, LGBTQ+ members and members with a disability
And our reader suggests,
I wouldn’t have advised anyone to do that!
I’d have listed all groups who may need additional support, eg. returning to work “people” etc.
The cultural change needed would be to ensure that anyone interested in the posts know what the process is and the current board members are trained in how to respond appropriately to requests for information/advice pre application - ie. there is a process for them to follow to ensure all treated equally.
and
not sure that EQ2010/Employment Law have been properly interpreted here. If you restrict [recruitment] ads to a particular “group” that’s direct discrimination against the other “groups”
As outlined in the previous post, this report has replaced a democratic process with an oligarchic one.
And the report itself is riddled with gender and CRT ideology.
Its methodology is questionable as so few speech therapists were interviewed, 19 out of a total of 18,000 (one of whom is Sean Pert, the WPATH member and now Chair) and it makes assumptions left, right and centre.
And it’s not only this 96% female profession that’s captured. Here’s a fascinating Mumsnet thread on Physios and here’s Occupational Therapists keen to “decolonise” education and the profession.
Whilst all this goes on, the vacancy rate for speech therapists in the UK stands at a whopping 23%.
Where would you like the speech therapy profession to focus its efforts given how many children and adults are missing out on much needed therapy?
This?
More to come on the “transgender voice therapy” grift on your NHS taxes in an upcoming post.
So much policy is based on a narrow range of allowable views. And so much potential is being wasted in the process.