AS I write, universities across the country are developing seemingly anti-racist policies, practices and even jobs that will ensure that a certain form of anti-racism is adopted into the heart of their mission statements and their procedures.

Ironically and tragically, however, in so doing, they are adopting a racialised ideology that is highly contested, even within academia, something that is not only divisive but also repressive.

Many academics maintain a liberal, or colour-blind view of racism, believing that we should treat everyone equally and, as the name suggests, refuse to see the colour of a person’s skin as being of any relevance to how they should be treated.

I agree with this perspective, you may agree with it, you may not. The point is that from the new racialist perspective being adopted by universities, this approach is unacceptable, bigoted even, and potentially racist.

READ MORE: Stuart Waiton: Universities are failing the test of free thinking

 

There are Marxist academics and indeed race theorists who view racism in terms of class politics, and, or, question the centrality of racism to modern society. These perspectives are also, according to the new dogma, incorrect and potentially part of the problem.

The correct approach to anti-racism can be seen in the various policies being developed at the moment, almost all of which talk about the importance of Black Lives Matter and the systemic nature of racism.

These policies, it should be noted, are not some side issue but are becoming part of the ethical and practical framework for universities. It is a new correct outlook that risks severely limiting alternative ideas and perspectives from developing.

Take for example the recent report commissioned by the government that questioned the systemic nature of racism. The man who headed this report, Tony Sewell, is a black man born in Brixton to Jamaican parents. If someone like Tony Sewell applied for one of the growing number of diversity and inclusion jobs, would he get it?

Indeed, if an academic is to be promoted, especially into senior positions, he or she will increasingly need to give a commitment to things like the need to decolonise the curriculum. But what if someone, like Sewell, questions the need to “decolonise” the curriculum and is unable to commit to the new approach?

In our newly racialised times, university leaders and administrators would no doubt struggle with a black man like Tony Sewell refusing to promote BLM or adopting a racialised view of the curriculum, but he may well still get the job. Why? Because part of the Race Equality Charter aims to, “improve the representation, progression and success of minority ethnic staff”.

This approach, appears at least, to racialise employment and indeed employment prospects. This is enhanced by the growing acceptance of the idea of a person's "lived experience" being vitally important, rather than their knowledge or expertise.

The Race Equality Charter is being or has been adopted by every university in Scotland. It is based on a racialised outlook developed from critical race theory that denounces colour blindness and argues that we must see colour.

At its heart, this approach elevates the idea of race and racism, and promotes the idea that we must understand society and ourselves through racial categories. From this perspective the negative idea of “whiteness” has emerged, as has the idea that we must see the colour of someone’s skin. It also, as one anti-racist critic argues, risks constructing a new caricature of black people as “victims”.

Many of those developing these policies in universities know little or nothing about critical race theory, nor, I suspect, do they all necessarily buy into the identity politics of groups like Black Lives Matter. But the essential principles and practices of this outlook are being adopted.

From a colour-blind perspective, one that was promoted by Martin Luther King, what is important is a person's character not the colour of their skin. Today, this outlook goes against what is essentially an ideology that has been adopted by universities.

Today, academia is institutionalising the idea that we must “see race”. Some believe that this undermines the very idea of equality and worry that this more victim-based approach will encourage a new type of cancel culture in universities.

Agree or disagree with this new approach, any approach that is forced onto academics and indeed students should be seen as a serious problem, indeed as being antithetical to an open academic institution. Compelling people to adopt an ideology, however “correct” you think it is, is tyrannical.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.