Sex discrimination at London School of Economics

Tom Martin has made headlines[1] around the world for bringing a £50,000 sex discrimination lawsuit against the prestigious London School of Economics (LSE), claiming a gender studies Masters programme he withdrew from, consistently focussed on women and exaggerated female victim-hood perspectives, blaming men, in order to justify excluding[2] male equality debates.

Tom has discussed his case on A Voice for Men[3], and now appears in a youtube video, asking LSE students if discrimination against men in a gender studies course is justifiable, as the university’s defence team now argue. Some LSE students are immediately hostile on camera, one declaring “There’s no discrimination against men!” – the outburst juxtaposed by a fast-scrolling 160 item A to Z[5] list of discrimination issues faced by boys and men. Other students agree with Tom’s cause, one quietly admitting “I’ve been here for three years and never heard or read of a study about equal rights or equal opportunities for men, so definitely, there’s a case there.”

The head of LSE’s Gender Institute wrote[6] candidly in 2011 (p.10), that when ‘women’s studies’ changed to ‘gender studies’ it signalled a new era of inclusion for men, and exclusion for the old victim-feminist bias, in favour of neutrality and objectivity – but that in truth, no such change happened. In 2008 [7] (p.275), she further spills the beans, “ ‘Gender studies’ as a designation [rather than ‘Women’s studies’] is more likely to attract funding.” On camera, one LSE gender student justifies a focus on women in gender studies as “just kind of what happens”, so corruption for her too, the unproblematic norm.

False advertising aside, the contract all students enter with LSE, explicitly rules out sex-discriminatory learning materials, but Tom has shown[8], the compulsory texts[9] are full of male-blaming bias. At first the university denied any bias, but now Tom has measured it, the defence are trying to make lame excuses for the bias[10]. Evasive or disingenuous denials of discrimination by defendants in lieu of a proper investigation, are grounds for further prosecution (p.641).

One text[12] in the curriculum actually recommends bias, calling it ‘Critical Studies on Men (CSM)'[13] – and according to various anecdotal reports[14], it taints a wide range of subjects, at every level, from kindergarden up[15]. Boys and men feel threatened by the negative stereotypes[16] targeting them, and research shows, this badly effects males’ concentration and performance[17].

With 59% of university degrees going to women and 41% to men[18], the gap getting wider, Tom’s lawsuit should invigorate educationalists to update their curricula and become more welcoming to males and male equality issues, as with females.

Equality, or a £50,000 lawsuit? For the 900 plus[19] women’s studies and gender studies departments worldwide, it should be an easy choice.


Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: