Former student sues LSE over its 'gender bias' against men

The London School of Economics is facing legal action after a former student claimed its gender studies course was sexist - against men.

Tom Martin, who quit the university after six weeks, claims in papers lodged at the Central London county court that lecturers ignored male issues.

He is claiming some £50,000 citing breach of contract, misleading advertising, misrepresentation, and breach of the Gender Equality Duty Act.

The 39-year-old, who attended the university last year to take up a Gender, Media and Culture Masters degree, said there was "systemic anti-male discrimination". But he said an internal investigation carried out by the university in the wake of his complaints found "no evidence" of bias.

Mr Martin, who is representing himself, said: "The core texts we had to read before each class were typically packed with anti-male discrimination and bias - heavily focusing on, exaggerating, and falsifying women's issues perspectives, whilst blaming men, to justify ignoring men's issues. There was no warning of this sexist agenda in the prospectus."

He added: "They simply refuse to acknowledge the research which contradicts the 'women good/men bad', or the 'women victims/men perpetrators' storyline.

"Science does not come into it at LSE's Gender Institute. Like a religion, the curriculum simply insists, by repetition, attempting to drum the anti-male agenda into the students."

The university's legal team has asked for the case to be struck out, claiming the core texts were not compulsory, merely recommended readings, and that the texts were equally available for both men and women to read, so therefore did not directly discriminate against men. The team also argues that "any discriminatory effect [against men] was plainly justifiable".

I read an article on this in the Guardian earlier today. The student in question only attended the course for six weeks. He really hasn't a leg to stand on and this will be easily dismissed from court.

Equally it's highly ironic that this student is using anti-discrimination law that was called for by feminist academics to represent his own interests, it is incredibly myopic. Sometimes I am a little frustrated with the lack of emphasis on males in my gender modules but considering most academia is written by and about male figures, he really should have expected the main focus of study to be about this male bias.

He may have a valid point (e.g. particularly if they don't teach things like male-female childcare issues i.e. Fathers4Justice), but the way he is going about this is typically LSE. He could have easily tried to bring this out to the public, but chases the money instead. Sigh.

I read that article too.

I think it is much more ironic that these feminists in the Gender Studies department are being accused of that which they fought so hard against.

I read that article too.

I think it is much more ironic that these feminists in the Gender Studies department are being accused of that which they fought so hard against.

I read an article on this in the Guardian earlier today. The student in question only attended the course for six weeks. He really hasn't a leg to stand on and this will be easily dismissed from court.

Equally it's highly ironic that this student is using anti-discrimination law that was called for by feminist academics to represent his own interests, it is incredibly myopic. Sometimes I am a little frustrated with the lack of emphasis on males in my gender modules but considering most academia is written by and about male figures, he really should have expected the main focus of study to be about this male bias.