Royal Air Force Apologises for Discriminating Against White Men

Royal Air Force Apologises for Discriminating Against White Men
Graduating cadets parade at the graduation ceremony of the Queens Squadron and Sovereigns Review at RAF College Cranwell, England, on July 16, 2020. (Julian Simmonds /Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
Alexander Zhang
6/30/2023
Updated:
6/30/2023

The chief of the RAF has apologised after an inquiry found a diversity drive discriminated against white men in favour of women and ethnic minorities.

According to a report commissioned by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), in 2020 and 2021, 161 candidates, who were either women or from ethnic minority backgrounds, were accelerated into training places ahead of white males.

The RAF said it accepts the diversity drive amounted to positive discrimination, adding it will not “make the same mistakes again.”

Air Chief Marshal Sir Rich Knighton, the new RAF chief, said he apologises “unreservedly to all those affected.”

The positive discrimination took place as the force attempted to reach its own diversity target for 40 percent of all new recruits to be women and 20 percent to be from ethnic minorities by 2030.

The RAF has now admitted that the target is unrealistic.

Questionable Legality

Former Group Captain Lizzy Nicholl, who was in charge of recruitment and selection, resigned last year after refusing to implement the diversity programme.

Nicholl’s resignation was first reported by Sky News in August 2022.

In an email to her boss, seen by Sky News, the group captain said she was not willing to allocate slots on RAF training courses based purely on a specific gender or ethnicity, as it was against equality legislation and against the RAF’s own legal guidance.

But at the time, the RAF denied there was any discrimination in its recruitment practices.

The RAF chief at the time, Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston, insisted that there was “no discrimination against any group” and that the focus on diversity led to “absolutely no drop in operational standards.”

But the MoD said in September 2022 it accepted that “despite the best of intentions, some mistakes were made.”

‘Pushing the Boundaries’

The MoD report, published on Thursday, said that “those who led the initiatives believed that they were ‘pushing the boundaries’ of positive action rather than acting unlawfully.”

It said the chain of command was “overly defensive” over Nicholl’s concerns and did not properly consider “whether she might have been justified in what she said regarding previous acts of positive discrimination or the legality of what she was asked to do.”

The MoD added that Nicholl’s resignation was “potentially avoidable” and her resignation letter included “fair criticisms which were later proved to be justified that her decision to resign was both understandable and reasonable.”

Knighton, the new RAF chief, said in response: “The belief at that time, based on the understanding of the recruiting process and interpretation of the legal advice, was that this practice demonstrated acceptable, positive action. We now know that it did not, and I apologise unreservedly to all those affected.”

He said the RAF accepts “some men were discriminated against.”

They include a group of 31 who were held back in training and “likely missed the opportunity to qualify for a £5,000 joining bonus,” he said, adding that they have now been compensated.

‘Significant Error’

Knighton said those involved in the diversity drive “acted with the best of intentions,” but “it is clear that people responsible for implementing these policies did raise concerns at the time, and the way in which long-term aspirational goals set by senior leadership to improve diversity in the RAF were translated into personal performance targets was wrong.”

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, speaking at a press briefing at Canada House in central London on Thursday, said it has been a “significant error” and a “cause for regret” for the RAF, but insisted it “didn’t lower the standard.”

“They discriminated against those people that were applying (with people) who were above the standard, so our military level wasn’t put at risk.

“However, the treatment of the people applying—it was wrong, unsatisfactory.”

PA Media contributed to this report.