Is there a hierarchy of protected characteristics?

One of the questions we regularly ask in our DEI training for schools, colleges and trusts is which of the protected characteristics are visible within your context. 

This question is deliberately wide and can be interpreted in a couple of different ways:

• Which of the 9 PCs are visible? i.e. which ones can we see as some are hidden/ invisible.
• Which of the 9 PCs are visible? i.e. which are present in our community and thereby which are missing or do we not have/ know the data to confirm they are present.
• Which of the 9 PCs are visible? i.e. which are being spoken about, invested in, have we received training on.

Often people ask do we not mean – which is a priority? And we emphasise to focus on visibility and explain the gap between intention and impact as there is likely to be some dissonance between what is happening and how it lands.  

The reflections and discussions across a full staff will surface some of the disparities of what is being paid attention to. Moreover, it will also highlight the difference in perspectives across different groups of staff – groups by role/ function and groups by identity.  

A key thing for us to reflect on, to discuss and to challenge ourselves to consider is that there are nine protected characteristics – so are we thinking about, talking about, paying attention to all of them simultaneously? Are we balancing our approach to create equity across the different identities? Are we taking an intersectional lens to consider who might be experiencing multiple layers of marginalisation and inequity?

We encourage schools to lean into DEI work in a holistic and in an intersectional way, as opposed to taking a single-issue approach as our identities are not that clean cut. We worry that some organisations are focusing on one protected characteristic per year, which means that some people will wait for 8-9 years for their identity to be considered and for their needs to be met. This is also a problem as we generally spend 7 years in a primary context and 7 years in a secondary context so all 9 would not be covered in everyone’s educational journey.  

Trust boards, Governing bodies, Senior leader teams do not sit around the table and decide that some of the protected characteristics are more important than others, but there will be a perception from outside of these strategic meeting spaces that there is a hierarchy. i.e. different stakeholders will have differing opinions that in this school we think about/ speak about/ pay attention to/ deal with XYZ but we do not think about/ speak about/ pay attention to/ deal with ABC.     

Another thing to consider about the perceived hierarchy is regarding which of the protected characteristics we are expected to log. If all 9 of the protected characteristics are equal, why do schools only need to log and report on two of them for the pupils’ behaviour and safety – we are expected to track prejudiced-based behavioural incidents of racism and homophobia? Does this mean that transphobia, islamophobia, ableism and misogyny are less important? Does this mean we are holding the student to account but not the staff?

One solution to this specific imbalance is to move from a racist log and a homophobia log to a prejudice log. A log that captures all prejudice, discrimination and hate. A log that captures all of the isms. A school can then filter the homophobia and racism to report upwards and outwards of the organisation as required, but the organisation’s data will be richer and fuller to inform patterns of behaviour and intervention needs.

CPOMs and other safeguarding and behaviour software systems enable you to tailor your fields so see what capacity yours has to add in extra fields. You can then log all prejudice and track for trends but also target the interventions. We have been working with a number of pastoral leaders and teams this year to grow their consciousness, confidence and competence in challenging language and behaviour which is not inclusive and not safe. We are supporting them in making their processes and policies more robust and more consistent to reduce prejudice-based/ identity-based harm in their schools.   

Another consideration alongside the student behaviour logging and tracking is to also consider the logging of adult incidents. Do our people systems capture the behaviours e.g. microaggressions and gaslighting that the staff are enacting so that these patterns can also be explored?  Do our training offers for all staff, but especially leaders and line managers empower and equip them to address these behaviours?

So as we reflect on the question: Is there a hierarchy of protected characteristics?

Consider how different people in your organisation might answer it based on their unique perspective and their own lived experience. And then go and ask them, to see how they actually respond so that you become more aware of the perception gap – if we do not know it exists, we cannot do anything about it – and the learning is in the listening after all.