Equally Discriminating

I realise this post risks being somewhat controversial but, never one to sweep issues under the carpet, here goes...

The primary school governing body that I'm a part of spent this morning discussing the Disability Equality Duty, which requires schools to take a more proactive, explicit and comprehensive approach to promoting disability equality and eliminating discrimination not only among disabled pupils, but disabled staff, parents, and other users of the school. As with much rights-based anti-discrimination legislation, I was left with a feeling that we ought to be promoting equal rights for all, not singling out any particular minority groups, however worthy their individual causes or however strong their claims—be they disabled, homosexual, women, Muslim, Asian ... or, dare I echo The Blunderer, even white, middle-class, heterosexual, Christian men(!)

For a start, not all minorities are easily defined. It seems even the male/female distinction is not as simple in these enlightened days as one might used to have thought. When it comes to disability, this is especially true. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 defines a disabled person as someone who has "a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities." For the sake of entitlement to employment rights, this seems to encompass a multitude of people who wouldn't normally dream of describing themselves as disabled, including those suffering from asthma, severe allergies, and back problems. Indeed, a report from the Cabinet Office two years ago, Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People, indicated that an estimated 11 million adults and 772,000 children in the UK are disabled — equating to 24% of the adult population and 7% of all children. Yet, employers are in no position to assess an individual's overall level of relative disadvantage, so no wonder many of them are put off by the politically correct language of disability. I know one employer who took on two disabled applicants for positions, knowing full well that the applicants wouldn't be able to do the jobs they were applying for and even posed a potential health and safety hazard, but didn't feel able to turn the applicants down out of fear that they would be accused of discrimination ... In both cases the disabled workers quickly realised they were not made for the jobs and moved on, but it needn't have turned out that way.

Others claim that "a disabled person is not disabled by their impairments but by a society that does not provide the environment to allow equality." So, depending on who you listen to, either we're all disabled or nobody is disabled, it's just we're all prejudiced. However, perhaps this route has greater potential. A universalised disability right could be incorporated into more general equality legislation. An example of this can be seen in Norway, where employers are bound by the Work Environment Act to provide employees with a safe environment at work and the scope for personal and vocational development and self-determination. Guidance to the Act suggests that the general regulations regarding the design of the working environment are of particular benefit to disabled people, but no definition of disability is provided. Thus people with a disability (however one wishes to define that) are provided for, but so is everyone else, thus eliminating the need for individuals to prove their disability status if they are to exercise their rights and also reducing the danger of discrimination—positive or negative.

I suggest that this would be a fairer way forward for everyone, for we are all individuals and nobody's identity should be defined by their membership of or exclusion from any class or category. Instead of responding to the complaints and grievances, be they real or perceived, of minority groups, anti-discrimination measures should focus on positive duties to introduce equality measures. As the Shadow Attorney General wrote in Reclaiming our civil liberties, in the current issue of The Difference, making the case for a modern, British Bill of Rights: "'Rights' and 'liberties' will no longer be a tool for those striving for special privileges but a protector of all and a reminder of the duties that we all owe to each other."