Why this case will win... By Tom Martin (September 20th, 2011)
If you have been following things carefully on the internet, you will have seen a debate on the feminist philosophers website, here:
And now, a speculative post from a British legal firm, here:
both articles set out why they don't think my case will win. They point to The Equality Act, 2010 which states that a course in feminism will not be considered discrimination within a teaching environment.
Fortunately, for this case (and all those interested in seeing an end to anti-male bias in gender studies) my case revolves around acts of discrimination which took place in 2009, so the Equality Act 2010 is not in effect.
Also, with the British legal firm's post, they assume that the university can prove that the key texts they gave us to read were only recommended but the incontrovertible truth is, the key texts were compulsory. We had to read them before every class. We had to discuss them in seminars. They were the only texts presented to us by the university in the core course pack. Any student will tell you, the key texts, are compulsory.
Sex discrimination, is ruled out, by the Sex Discrimination act 1975. It is illegal to place men in any kind of detrimental position, in terms of the treatment they receive in an educational institution.
Harassment, is ruled out by the Sex Discrimination Act and the university's rules:-
Negative stereotyping of one sex or other in a classroom setting, is considered harassment too.
The curriculum (and the lecturers) negatively stereotyped men, by disproportionately portraying men as...
Violent and psychological abusers of women
The only violent sex.
The Controllers of women
The Mutilators of women's genitals
The Dominators of women
The Owners of women
And, Men were also typically portrayed as
The sex which is against equality
The sex whose academic studies are anti-woman, and should be excluded.
The sex who should be studied in a critical way.
The sex which faces no discrimination valid of being mentioned or advocated for favourably.
The sex who are not physically capable of understanding what is being taught.
That's a lot of negative stereotypes men face in gender studies classes today. It creates a sensation like fight or flight. Very physically unpleasant for any men in class being targeted like that.
We all face sexism in life. People in the office or on the factory floor, might say something sexist to you, but they're probably an idiot and you can shrug it off. With gender studies professors though, they are experts on what is and is not sexism. They do know better, but have decided to attack men. That makes it 100 times more menacing.
Also, victimization when someone complains of discrimination, as I did in class repeatedly, its illegal to subsequently punish that person for complaining. I don't want to go into that here, because it involves lecturer conduct, which I have promised to keep confidential, but it is a strand of the legal case and it's all in black and white as with so much of the evidence.
Also misleading advertising
There was no warning of the sexism or fundamental singular victim-female anti-male perspective they'd be teaching us. Instead, the prospectus claimed the course offered a 'range of perspectives'. But one of the LSE lecturers has since written a book though, where she actually admits that the 'range of perspectives' line is just a front for the singular [anti-male, victim-female] perspective
She also admits, in that book, that in the UK, Gender studies does mean women and men - although she had previously tried to deny this in
the complaints process - and the defence team continue to try to claim that 'gender' is obviously about women, women, women.
They'll say anything to anyone to try and get away with this, but they're not going to. The evidence is in.
And then... there's breach of contract...
The university's regulations become part of the terms of the contract, and those regulations, under the heading 'Legal Obligations' specifically rule out the use of sex-discriminatory learning materials.
I have provided the university with a line by line analysis of a reliably large cross sample of their texts, showing beyond reasonable doubt, that the texts are indeed, overwhelmingly biased against men.
The university originally argued, in their internal report, which mysteriously denied everything, that there was 'no discrimination' in the core texts, but then, having read my line by line analysis of the core texts, lodged with the court, the university's defence team are now claiming that the core texts were not
compulsory, only recommended which is a joke 'core texts' or 'key' texts, whatever you want to call them, are the compulsory ones. The only ones the university package for you to read.
'Recommended texts' are the recommended ones. Every student knows this. It's the core 'key' texts as they call them now, which we had to read before each seminar, as it was the key texts alone that we would be made to discuss in seminar - so the key texts, were the bare minimum we had to read. The recommended texts... were not provided. It's a desperate defence to say the key texts were only recommended.
Every student will know the university is lying about this to save its ass.
The university also claim that as men and women had equal access to the texts, the texts therefore did not discriminate. It's like back in the 60s, saying both blacks and whites can get on the bus, and yeah, blacks have to sit at the back but it isn't discrimination - or like saying in Saudi Arabia today, men and women can both get on the bus the women have to sit at the back, but if all those seats are full, then two men have to give up their seat, so one woman can sit down. The bus takes you to where you want to go - but it is discrimination.
But the gender studies bus is going round and round in circles so it's impossible to enjoy the journey or the destination. Gender studies in its current form, has chosen to render itself both sexist and useless.
Of course, there was discrimination in the core texts and now the defence are hedging their bets by saying any such [anti-male] discrimination was 'plainly justified' but of course they will justify it with anti-male propaganda. False statistics and perspectives, pretending women are the big victims, and men the big perpetrators. It's a house of cards which is coming down. I know gender research well enough, to expose all their victim-female anti-male perspectives and statistics for what they are.
Deliberate bias in a taught course, is not allowed either. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator, advise universities that their academic
judgement is not immune from prosecution, if it incorporates deliberate bias.
Now, given the university's prior expert knowledge of the anti-male bias in the course, a bias which they openly refer to, then there is a breach of contract. LSE knew the course did not do what it promised, and so if my case against them is successful, they have to pay damages to put me in a position I would be in, had they honoured the contract properly. That means, the increased earnings potential I would be able to command with a Masters of Science degree from a top university, should be factored into the damages the university have to pay.
So the damages claim I've made for around £50,000 which covers other damages and costs too is actually quite modest.
LSE can easily afford to pay it, but it will send a very clear message to all other gender studies, social science, media, humanities degrees, and so forth ... that they better cut out the anti-male bias too, or they'll end up in court like LSE.
But, anyone who thinks this is going to be easy money for me, probably doesn't realise what's involved in bringing a court case yourself.
First off, I spent 6 months writing dozens of letters to the university trying to get them to cooperate and do a proper investigation.
I've spent about £2000 on legal advice so far, with another £1000 on court fees. I spent about 6 weeks reading the law on discrimination, another 6 weeks filing the particulars of claim which are 42 pages long, and compiling a further 150
pages of supporting evidence.
Also, because I am now in such a massive financial hole, I have had to go public by setting up the website, at further cost, chasing journalists round, writing articles, tweeting, leafleting I'm making a video this week on LSE's campus, anything to draw attention to the cause, to make people aware of the issues, and get them to donate to the legal fighting fund.
It's going very well. The fighting fund has reached £711 so far, with 28 donations from men and women in five different countries so thank you very much to all those who have donated, and tweeted and blogged and so forth. We are definitely getting there.
I still need a further £600, and then the one off flat-rate court hearing fee will be covered at least, and gender studies will get its day in court.
The website is www.sexismbusters.org you can go there, donate, keep up to date with the media articles on the case, and my email address is there too.
And some of you might be thinking you won't be affected by bad gender studies practices, so why should you donate, but consider, the propaganda they spew out contaminates lots of other degrees too, and contaminates the media, and we want to be able to help future generations of women and men go to university without being poisoned on men, so they can go on to produce media and policy, which does not discriminate against men - and does not hold women back either.
So please, click on the donate button, you'll get a paypal page, but you don't need to do paypal, you can just type your card details in on the right of the screen so no passwords to remember at all.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for all support! Tom can be contacted directly, at: