Where's the tick box for 'none of your business?'

WHEN I ask questions, I think often it is attributed to my being an American or an outsider but actually it is because I am an Elephant’s Child.

I am indebted to a friend who re-introduced me to Rudyard Kipling’s Just So stories. Probably because I asked why. If you haven’t read them for a while, I’d encourage you to give them a re-read. In the meantime, suffice it to say the Elephant Child was endowed with curiosity.

If I hadn’t been stopped by a balky drop-down box on the online registration for an evening course at the local college, I might have sailed on by filling in the boxes with an increasingly sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach. In that hesitation, the Elephant Child reared up. I had to ask why the college needed to know if I were still the same gender that I was born with; whether I was gay, lesbian or bisexual; or whether I had ever been in care. Along with the customary and slightly offensive questions about ethnicity, religion, and socio-economic background.

First I asked why it needed to ask those questions and, I was told, essentially, it was fulfilling its statutory obligations. I’ll speak more about that in a minute.

Next I asked why can’t I opt out and I was told "prefer not to say" was the opt out. Perhaps it is a variation in British vs American English, but "prefer not to say" sounds like an evasion. It was unrealistic to expect "none of your business" to show up but I am chronically hopeful as well as curious.

When I asked how the responses to these questions would contribute in any way to my educational experience, I was told that without knowing if I were included in one of the protected characters identified by these questions, it was impossible to say how or even if it might shape my educational experience. For me, that is the heart of the foolishness: If the responses cannot be tied to an individual, then they are useless. If they can be tied to an individual, they are potentially harmful to the individual and the college.

Here I want to say the college kindly allowed me to register with a paper form so I could sidestep its most awkward questions. Also, as a middle-of-the-road auld wifie still the same but somewhat aged gender I was born with, some might argue I should be content and leave the situation alone. I thought about it; it would have been the easy way out. Too easy. Because I am an auld wifie with nothing to hide, I have the safety and, hence, the responsibility of speaking up for those who might be hurt by the questions.

I know we are no longer in the era of Reading Gaol, where Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for his homosexuality but a young person may not have "come out" to his family or friends and the revelation through these questions might, at best, be embarrassing. At worst, it could lead to the kind of cyber bullying that has led to suicides and criminal investigations of threats of violence.

Only if the response might generate some positive outcome, would it outweigh the inherent risks.

Sexual orientation is only one of the protected characteristics re-labelled and combined under one new law, Equality Act of 2010. If, like me, you wonder why a 2010 act is only now manifesting itself in these pesky questions, the answer is that only part of the 2010 act was initiated in 2010. If you think that is odd, then let me assure you that trying to read the rest of the legislation and the publication, Technical Guidance for Schools, will give you vertigo or a migraine. Even so, I encourage you take a look. I fear we got stuck with this legislation and this statutory body because somehow we nodded off when it was being discussed.

Tugging at the tangled thread that led to these questions convinced me there are no villains but people tangled up in their good intentions. That can sometimes be more difficult than a hungry crocodile, which was all Kipling’s Elephant Child had to face.

The rationale for these questions, according to an e-mail from vice-principal Donald MacBeath: "The University of the Highlands and Islands is collecting and monitoring information in order to meet our equality and legislative requirements for each student and staff member."

That is the kind of language and laudable goal that no-one could argue with but the connection between the questions and that goal is the proverbial missing link. Whenever the committee met to determine how it was going to meet those objectives, there should have been an Elephant Child around the table to ask not only why but how.

In this limited space, I can only touch on my chief concerns about the data security. First, social engineering. It is very easy to hack into an account; the data is collected and stored, providing another opportunity for accessing the data. The data is collected with less care than Amazon provides for its online purchases.

More worryingly, the same statutory obligations that led them to collect this information confidentially and anonymously can also prompt them to release it if prompted. In addition to reading the Equality Act and the Technical Guidance for Schools, I read the university’s data protection policy: "The personal data that you supply is held and processed by UHI and/or the academic partner(s) which constitute the Highlands and Islands (UHI). By agreeing to this declaration you consent to these bodies holding and processing your personal data for the purposes of complying with the statutory obligation to provide information to a number of official agencies, as well as for their own administrative, business and research activities, the publication of graduation lists and in order to communicate with and provide services to UHI alumni."

It is easier to see how I think these questions can be harmful to an individual – someone in any of the protected characteristics, or someone who thinks that intrusive personal questions are not the proper sphere for government intervention, no matter how well meaning. You may be wondering why I suggested the college was exposing itself to harm with these questions. Ironically, in the very asking they expose some of the folks who fall into the protected characteristics to discrimination or victimisation, the very thing they set out to avoid.