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

[RoyalCorgi]

Guardian story:

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/16/uk-academic-sues-university-losing-role-critical-race-theory-row-leeds-beckett

This is pertinent here for two reasons. One is that the academic who is suing Leeds Beckett is using the argument that "critical race theory" is a protected belief, using the Forstater case as a precedent:

"In June, finding that gender-critical views were a protected belief, the employment appeals tribunal said only views akin to nazism or totalitarianism were unworthy of protections for rights of freedom of expression and thought under the Equality Act."

The other is that critical race theorists tend to support the trans/queer theory agenda. In this particular case the academic in question was apparently sacked from her advisory role by Leeds Beckett University after her organisation tweeted to a black person first that he was a "house Negro" and then that he was a "coconut". Apparently these terms are part of standard discourse in critical race theory and so should be protected under the law.

And there was me thinking they were just terms of racist abuse...

Interesting. I don't know much about this whole area.

I think, being fair, the 'house negro' comment is slightly less bad in context (it's repeating what someone's already claimed, I guess, and she didn't post it?):

The first tweet was sent in February after the conservative political commentator Calvin Robinson said on BBC One’s The Big Questions that he had been attacked for being Black and rightwing: “For example I have been called Bounty, Uncle Tom, house negro for not having the right opinion.”

On 14 February the Race Trust, which was founded by Khanom, posted a tweet, tagging Robinson and asking: “Does it not shame you that most people see you as a house negro?” Khanom said she did not post the tweet but accepted responsibility for it.

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?

I find her wording odd "Leeds Beckett condemned me to be a racist" - that sounds like she's admitting she is 'a racist' but was made to be, or is it just poor phrasing?

I can't get my head round that.

Is it that it's doesn't matter what is said as long as you claim you are saying it for 'real' reasons?

Or that the colour of your skin, your own ethnicity removes any transgression?

Or that billywabbaticks are snodporens and so all is parabolittle?

her organisation tweeted to a black person first that he was a "house Negro" and then that he was a "coconut". Apparently these terms are part of standard discourse in critical race theory and so should be protected under the law.
And there was me thinking they were just terms of racist abuse...
Quite. She can believe whatever theory she likes (protected) but slurs and harassment aren't permitted (also Forstater case).
I can maybe believe that the first quote was part of a wider context but I can't see any justification for the others which appear to be using very unpleasant racial terms to denigrate someone.
It'll be interesting to see how the court sees this.

Remember that the next round for Maya will be the nature of the manifestation of belief. For the "house negro" academic, they might not find the latter issue easy to navigate.

I came here hoping somebody could explain this to me because I have no idea and I also can’t get to the bottom of critical race theory. Really hoping people more knowledgeable than me here will help me understand!

Oh wait, I thought the tweet that Calvin Robinson said was the one that was being referred to. I don't think the context makes it much better. That's pretty bad.

The term coconut is a jibe, often used in a light-hearted manner amongst 2nd generation immigrants. I have often used this to refer to myself and has in no way ever been considered "racist". For example, it might mean someone who canot speak the language of their parents or wthnic heritage, or who do conform to the typical cultural values. It is rude as in I wouldnt say it in a professional capacity, but amongst friends its really not as horrific as some PP are making out.

I just thought I would add that as an NB. I dont know anything else about CRT or GC amongst academics. Lets all just be careful about witch hunts though.

Coconut back in the 70s was not so jocular.

My racist uncle used it a lot about the black men he worked with - black but acting white and even, think about it, taking management jobs!

All sorts of wrong!

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.

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.

That's horrible @Jaysmith71

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?

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.

Agree. It's pretty nasty. Calling someone a 'house negro' because they don't subscribe to a particular orthodoxy on race seems indisputably racist. I think that claiming terms like 'house Negro' and 'coconut' are an integral part of critical race theory is outrageous. Suppose they won - does that mean that all of us can now go round referring to black people we disagree with as 'house Negroes'?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.