UK academic sues university after losing role in critical race theory row

She claims these terms aren't racist, but presumably they would be if used of Black people by white people or Asian people? Rather like the "n" word that is bandied around in rap music etc. and presumably in some Black speech. She does admit that the words are offensive… and then immediately defends herself for using them:

'It’s so contradictory it’s unreal – racists have taken these terms and defined them for us. There is no way they are racist. They are meant to make someone feel uncomfortable, but just because something’s offensive doesn’t mean you can’t say it.”'

But you can expect people actually to be offended by them and to question your right to use such language to you with impunity. This is the "I only said it to get a reaction" defence. If you do get a reaction, you have to take the consequences, however.

I'd say (I'm not a lawyer) that this case has nothing to do with whether her ideological beliefs are protected in law. The question concerns the speech she herself used, on a public forum, or that came from a source sanctioned by her (the Race Trust). Is it legitimate for the university to take action against her for speech that she did not issue in her role as advisor? If she is associated with the university qua head/founder of the Race Trust, then that tweet could be grounds for the university to end this relationship, as it would cast doubt on her ability to inspire confidence in others, including students, as an authority on race (reactions ranging from "If this Black woman is using this nasty, degrading term about another Black person, what is she doing telling other people what to do or say about race?" to "Look at the language these Blacks use to one another, why can't we use it too [often said about the 'n' word]?").

The other tweet came from her personally, so may not be relevant, unless she made her connection to the university explicit in the tweet or in her Twitter handle, or perhaps unless her connection is well-known enough for the tweet to bring the university into disrepute.

No one has a right to insult specific people. If maya stood next to a transwoman at work and said to someone else, let’s ask Sarah what he thinks, hey Sarah give us a blokes perspective on this, there are no protections for that. I can’t imagine there are protections for this either.

I think the Forstater ruling being so massively misrepresented on Twitter is going to bite those people on the bum who are now relying on those misrepresentations for their 'facts' and 'precedents'.

Isn't it kind of pathetic that academics, in universities, are arguing about the right to certain viewpoints in the academia has to get into the area of protected belief?

What is the university for if not to allow for discussion and exploration of often controversial and even bizarre viewpoints? Why do these people think tenure exists?

There are philosophers in universities who have argued for fourth trimester abortions to be legal, or that it is ok to have sex with dogs, among other more obscure things.

But comparisons don't have to be valid on all fronts, they never are really, because they are always comparing different things.

Modern anti-racism and gender ideology are both based on CT, so they have important things in common. That's why they get compared for the most part.

Just as an aside and this isn't intended as a reflection on the OP's posting of this at all, only on the Guardian's own allusion to the Forstater ruling I'm really uncomfortable with any attempts to compare the transgender debate with debates about race. The reason it is straightforwardly reprehensible and discriminatory for a white woman to object to having a black woman in the adjacent hospital bed is that there are no important or fundamental differences between white and black people. There are often cultural differences between black and white communities, sure, and there are in many cases injustices in terms of the treatment of individuals from those communities, but at the level of genetics and biology the differences are very, very marginal.

That is not the case with male and female people. There are important and measurable biological, physical, and (in broad strokes terms) behavioural differences between biological men and biological women. This is why it is completely inappropriate (and, in my view, frankly racist) for the NHS to treat biological women who do not wish to occupy ward space with transwomen in the same way as they would treat a white woman who did not wish to occupy the bed next to a black woman. To imply equivalence between those two causes of concern is to imply equivalence between racial difference and sex difference, and that is simply wrong.

She'd have to accept their right to call her equally offensive terms.

Would that then open up the possibility of someone arguing for their right to use the n word? Or would that never cross the threshold of 'protected belief'?

If CRT is a protected belief then so is not believing in CRT. Both would be protected.

Absolutely

If CRT is a protected belief then so is not believing in CRT. Both would be protected.

Khanom told the Guardian the terms were “meant to be offensive, because they’re antiracist terms. You’re highlighting a ­problem … It’s almost upholding white supremacy. It’s so contradictory it’s unreal – racists have taken these terms and defined them for us. There is no way they are racist. They are meant to make someone feel uncomfortable, but just because something’s offensive doesn’t mean you can’t say it.”

She's applying these terms to other black people who don't share her views. Surely they have a right to engage in any discussion of what is racist. She'd have to accept their right to call her equally offensive terms.

Having said that I think the uni has handled it badly.

Ironic that her twitter bio says she's a 'racial literacy specialist', as not using ethnic slurs against a member of another ethnic group is pretty elementary stuff.

Was left wondering what the advisory role work involved (she's a full-time teacher?) and how she was appointed to the role.

But it is being investigated @Ozanj. Perhaps CRT will be deemed a protected characteristic like GC theory. Whether it gives Khanom the right to use racist language in her professional capacity is debatable though , surely?

Her belief may well turn out to be protected, but she doesn't have the right to harass or call people racial slurs. Maya did not harass anybody in her work place, or anywhere else for that matter. And, particularly in a professional environment, this individual won't get to call people slurs either. Or if they do, there will the risk of losing their employment.

Should predominately white run institutions get to police BAME thought / speech like this? That’s the point of debate. If this doesn’t get investigated then black people at universities will stop being able to reclaim the language white racists oppress them with.

The coconut one is particularly interesting as it refers to someone being one race but acting as if they are another, doesn't it? Which would imply there's some implicit way of acting that corresponds with each race? Or is it more like the equivalent of internalised misogyny?

Internalized misogyny is often used the same way, to dismiss the views of women who don't agree with your narrative.

My thinking is this:

I don't think academics should be dismissed for believing in CRT, although I think it's a deeply racist ideology. (Which is not to say everyone who believes it is ok with racism.)

And I have encountered this kind of talk before, which is basically about seeing "blackness" and "whiteness" as political positions. So there is a logical extension of the viewpoint.

I am not convinced that it is therefor ok to use slurs. The house negro comment is arguable expressing the intellectual content of the idea rather than being used as a slur, but I am not so sure about the coconut comment.

I would question whether dismissal is the right answer, some sort of disciplinary note and guidance on appropriate discourse might be better. But then maybe this happened already, I don't know.

I've witnesses colleagues using the term 'coconut' to describe other colleagues who won't actively support diversity iniatives - made it to the top and don't support others because they want to blend in with white people. Just like the 'queen bee' of women in leadership roles.

In the UK, 'coconut' has been 'reclaimed' in a particularly nasty way by some black youths as a term of abuse for other black youths who work hard at school, dress smartly and have academic ambitions

Totally sad to see that the grandchildren of immigrants have bought into these negative ideas. When I was growing up in Northern Ireland in the sixties, young people in working class areas who wanted to study where also viewed as class traitors.

Coconut has been used as an insult whenever I've heard it. A black colleague said she was regularly referred to as a coconut by other black women because her partner was white.

further, having looked at the photograph of Aysha Khanom that accompanies, the article, it seems that from a 'race' perspective what has happened is a person of caucasian appearance has used a race based insult ('coconut') to describe a black person.

that kind of sounds like racism to me too?

surely assuming that ALL black people will have left wing views is in itself racist?

So the race trust's attempt to shame Calvin Robinson for his opinions on the basis of his race by tweeting “Does it not shame you that most people see you as a house negro?” seems racist to me.

I mean I disagree with Robinson's views on first reading - he seems to dispute that black people face structural inequality, but if he wants to hold that view, surely the colour of his skin shouldn't preclude him from doing so?

That's horrible @Jaysmith71

In the UK, 'coconut' has been 'reclaimed' in a particularly nasty way by some black youths as a term of abuse for other black youths who work hard at school, dress smartly and have academic ambitions. It is the sort of mentality that led to the murder of 10 year old Damilola Taylor.

But Maya never called anyone anything at work. She was brought to book for her personal tweets in her own time.

CRT may use such terms to denote white tokenism, but it does not advocate name-calling.