Playfair Library, University of Edinburgh

22 April 2023

This post summarises the key themes raised by people during the roundtable sessions at the REWG’s launch event on 22 April 2023.

UoE = University of Edinburgh

CoRJI = community of reparatory justice interest

Point 1: Addressing power imbalances between the UoE and CoRJI:

Questions were raised about the key decision makers within the UoE and whether they committed to help. The fact that neither the Principal nor any members of the Executive were present suggested a lack of institutional commitment and reinforced the image of UoE as an ‘ivory tower’ detached from communities. People were concerned about the risks of a top-down project driven solely by the concerns of the institution. They wanted to be assured that the concerns of CoRJI would both drive the process and be at the centre of decision-making processes, but were unclear on how to make that happen. More information was needed on how to empower CoRJI throughout the review and how to level the playing field to enable people to challenge the system.

Point 2: Developing processes of engagement and dialogue for action:

Many people raised concerns about ‘consultation for consultation’s sake’. They queried the logic of helping an institution that continues to contribute to marginalisation. There was also some scepticism about the effectiveness of consultation (leading to consultation fatigue) based on the failure of previous engagements to lead to any substantive change. It was recognised that consultation becomes meaningless when it is not followed by actions that benefit those negatively affected by the legacies of slavery and colonialism (CoRJI).

Consultation fatigue arises partly because of the way in which people are asked for information. Often this takes the form of surveys that fail to set clear objectives, provide feedback and/or lead to substantive change. People need to know why they are completing a survey and what it will do to help the community.

In terms of dialogue, it was felt that more information was needed on how we intend to open up a space in which people are able to express, confront and explore underlying tensions (often connected with systemic racism). People also suggested hosting a conversation or workshop on managing (white) guilt and wanted to hear more from community groups, and not just academics.

Point 3: Benefitting CoRJI and ensuring reciprocity:

Any process of engagement means thinking about how communities will benefit on a practical level. There were several different suggestions made. Participants should be remunerated beyond covering travel expenses. The lack of payment suggests that people are not being fully recognised for their work. Childcare provision would also help to address barriers to participation. After the event, people should be credited for their work, e.g. by ensuring that their names are printed on event programmes and that they are acknowledged in any outputs. Participants also need to be told how their contribution has shaped an agenda/programme. In terms of practical ways that communities might benefit, people spoke about the need for a space in which to connect community groups to interested students and academics, while helping community groups to network among themselves. As an alternative to surveys, they suggested providing space to enable community groups to tell their own stories about what they have been doing to address the legacies of slavery and colonialism, and resourcing to publish materials and showcase their work. Overall, a joint model is needed for UoE to work together with CoRJI going forward.

Point 4: Finding appropriate spaces for engagement:

The physical space in which people are to participate was another key topic of conversation. On the one hand, communities want to be able to access and feel comfortable within university spaces. Inviting (external) CoRJI into university spaces (such as the Playfair Library) gives people an opportunity to become familiar with it, while critically engaging with it. Concerns about ‘impostor syndrome’ were raised with people wanting the UoE to find ways to attenuate such experiences. On the other hand, people also wanted researchers to come into communities, especially given that people are being moved further and further outside of the city due to gentrification. The use of online events would also enable international participation.

Point 5: Opening up access to education on an international scale:

The subject of tuition fees for students from formerly colonised/enslaved countries was discussed across several groups. These costs were seen as excessive and representative of ongoing institutional racism. Higher education is only affordable for elites from developing countries, so many felt there was a need for a reduction in fees for racially minoritised groups from formally colonised countries and the introduction of scholarships. Since UoE attracts young people from developing countries, it also needs to consider what it will give back to those countries.

Point 6: Transforming and decolonising the curriculum:

The subject of curriculum transformation was discussed across several groups. It was widely recognised that the UoE has long been a producer of racist knowledge, so its role today must be to reverse that trend. A number of students commented on a lack of space within the current curriculum for teaching on the histories of British and/or Scottish involvement in slavery and colonialism, and the lack of visibility of UoE’s specific links to these histories. People need to be more aware of the work that is going on within the review (and within the UoE more generally) and understand how it is linked to a desire to shift mindsets and culture within the institution.

Students also commented on the paucity of modules relating to other civilisations, notably in Afrika and Abya Yala, and noted the importance of studying civilisations that existed prior to European-led slavery and colonialism, i.e. to underscore the fact that history did not begin with Europe.

This led to wider discussions about the need to transform existing mindsets within the UoE and the key role that teaching and curriculum must play in that transformation. It is time to reverse the trend whereby universities and centres of learning in the Global North impose their knowledges on universities and centres of learning in the Global South. What can we learn from Afrika, Abya Yala, Indigenous and First Nations peoples? What Indigenous ways of learning can be introduced into the university to produce different forms of knowledge and encourage other ways of learning? Overall, there was a sense that we need to call into question the origins of the structures of traditional scholarship through ‘a revolution in pedagogics’ that explores how alternative pedagogies from the Global South can be incorporated to meet the different needs within the university community.

Point 7: Recognising the past, building awareness and sustaining transformation:

People noted that we still don’t have access to counter-narratives regarding the institution. They felt that the UoE is being held hostage by its ‘Enlightenment’ identity and commented that to focus solely on its ‘virtues’ prevents us from recognising the horrors with which the Enlightenment is twinned.

There were concerns about the marginalisation and lack of visibility relating to the UoE’s links to the histories of slavery and colonialism. A lack of knowledge about these links, coupled with the slowness of the institution to respond to calls for recognition, were seen as representive of a desire to avoid drawing attention to the past and ‘organised ignorance’. The value of doing this research was linked to undeniability going forwards.

People noted the risks of marginalising Scottish involvement within the broader space of the British empire and also of individualising responsibility, e.g. by focusing on one or two key figures. While it is important to recognise the role of some individuals, this would need to be counterbalanced with a broader understanding the systemic nature of UoE’s involvement stretching from the past into the present.

While the work of the review was very welcomed, many people questioned what mechanisms would be put in place to keep the work going over a longer timeframe. There were warnings against the adoption of superficial measures to recognise the UoE’s links to slavery and colonialism. It was felt that the university needs to be far more proactive in raising awareness about its links to slavery and colonialism. Participants wanted to see a more proactive approach where tangible actions are put in place that will directly benefit staff and students who are most adversely affected by the legacies of slavery and colonialism.

As a solution, they called for a department or centre to be established specialising in decolonisation, which could then play an advisory role to other departments. Such a department or centre could also work with schools to help them address issues relating to racism, e.g. by offering training programmes.

Point 8: Tackling systemic and institutional racism:

The topic of institutional racism was another repeated theme. People noted the problems around the invisibility and deniability of institutional racism, along with the lack of recognition among more privileged groups concerning the discrimination experienced by marginalised communities. They discussed the issues with the current reporting structures relating to incidences of racism, noting that the systems are opaque. Concerns were expressed that reporting incidences of racism might hamper progression or promotion and calls were made for a more transparent, coherent and functional mechanism for tackling racial discrimination.

Overall, there was a sense that the UoE has being very slow to react to issues concerning racism. While curriculum transformation is underway, this is only one aspect. People considered that the systems within the institution (such as People and Money) are not fit for purpose when it comes to making changes quickly. Moreover, they continue to be colonial, extractivist and in urgent need of decolonising. Particularly areas for urgent attention included HR (in terms of recruitment, retention and promotion) and finance.

Instead of tackling deep-rooted systemic issues, there is a tendency towards virtue signalling and a focus on exterior symbols only. The onboard training, for example, was seen as tokenistic. What is needed is a more continuous process of training and dialogue to keep moving the work forwards.

Point 9: Addressing the under-representation of racialised minorities:

There was widespread recognition that the UoE lacks visible representation from minoritised communities among its student and staff population. This suggests issues with institutional racism at the level of admissions and recruitment. The absence of racialised minorities at higher levels was also a concern, resulting in their exclusion from decision- and policy-making processes.

There were calls for affirmative action to increase the percentage of people from minoritised ethnic groups and concrete actions to guarantee access. At the same time, it was acknowledged that just having more people from Black and/or other racially minoritised groups is not sufficient; there needs to be a shift in terms of both the culture and the curriculum.

Point 10: Thinking through reparations and reparatory justice:

Participants recognised that reparations and reparatory justice are holistic processes that seek to benefit affected communities and work towards repairing harms within the context of the UN Principles of a ‘Right to Remedy’. Before we can begin to repair, participants noted that the UoE needs first to stop committing harms, for example, by ending the current systems of extractivism. They suggested looking at the examples of other institutions on a global scale that have been doing reparations work.

The question was raised as to what people are willing to give up in terms of their privilege and what the UoE is willing to ‘sacrifice’. There were many initial suggestions about how the UoE might being the process of repair, including curriculum transformation, an overhaul of recruitment processes and the issuing of a public apology. Many noted that reparation also means providing educational opportunities for people from developing countries. There were calls for any objects or ancestral remains to be returned to host communities and/or for communities to be able to gain access more easily to the archives held by the UoE, especially when it comes to artefacts linked to slavery and colonialism. The UoE also needs to reflect on its current land ownership and entitlement within its local community.

Overall, it was hoped that universities could lead the way by becoming centre for reparation and reparatory justice.

Key Points from Inaugural Event Roundtables / Decolonised Transformations by blogadmin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0