35 - Bury College’s Double Standards: When “Offensive” Only Matters if Parents Find Out

Bury College has repeatedly claimed in public that it is an inclusive institution with “no room for discrimination of any kind.” But evidence from the recent employment tribunal tells a very different story, one where the College applies its standards only when convenient, and only when there is a risk of reputational damage.

Saying the Word in Private: No Consequences

During the tribunal, Sarah Walton, the College’s own Designated Safeguarding Lead, admitted she used the word “retard” directly to Student A during her investigation. Walton acknowledged under cross-examination that she knew the word could cause harm to the student, but used it anyway.

Despite this admission, Walton was never investigated, never disciplined, and faced no consequences. According to the College’s own line of reasoning at tribunal, the use of the word was only unacceptable when it came from the maths lecturer.

When Parents Complain: Suddenly Offensive

Contrast that with what happened to the lecturer. He repeated the word back to Student A in the moment, after the student himself had used it first. At the time, Student A expressed no offence. Another student, however, later told her mother, and when the parent complained, the College suddenly declared the word “highly offensive” and launched a full disciplinary process that ended in dismissal.

The message is clear: if the College can keep it quiet, staff can say the word without fear. But the moment a parent finds out, the College pivots to a holier-than-thou stance, branding the word unacceptable and wielding the full weight of its policies against the accused.

A Policy of Saving Face

This double standard shows that the College’s concern was less about safeguarding students and more about protecting its reputation. By punishing the lecturer harshly while ignoring Walton’s identical use of the word, the College projected a tough, “zero tolerance” image externally, while tolerating the very same behaviour behind closed doors.

Conclusion

What emerges is a policy of convenience: safeguarding when it suits the College, silence when it doesn’t. The tribunal has already found that the dismissal was unfair due to procedural failings. But beyond process, this case exposes something deeper: a culture where rules bend depending on who is watching, and where protecting the College’s image comes before protecting students or treating staff fairly.