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...

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

Absolutely

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'?

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

@WeAreTheWomen

It doesn't matter whether she thinks they are racist. The offence of racism is based on how the person on the receiving end of the behaviour / words experiences them.

People can find pretty much anything offensive if they are in the right frame of mind to do so.

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

No it hasn't.

Ill-informed racist nonsense.

Coconut is a term that's used for Black people who disparage their own, in favour of trying to gain kudos from White people via doing so.

I don't use the term but don't come here lying about and blaming Black youths.

The boys that killed Damilola Taylor chose their bad actions.

Don't slyly stereotype Black boys due to what was done, because you'd soon squwak if when White youths kill, all are branded culpable.

I know a lot, relatively, about CRT.

Racist, offensive terms are absolutely not justified by CRT, part of CRT, etc.

However, the article also really misrepresents what happened.

@DeeCeeCherry

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

No it hasn't.

Ill-informed racist nonsense.

Coconut is a term that's used for Black people who disparage their own, in favour of trying to gain kudos from White people via doing so.

I don't use the term but don't come here lying about and blaming Black youths.

The boys that killed Damilola Taylor chose their bad actions.

Don't slyly stereotype Black boys due to what was done, because you'd soon squwak if when White youths kill, all are branded culpable.

I'm not sure this is completely correct. I grew up in a white working class / middle class area, and the working class boys were definitely subject to peer pressure to disengage from school. being seen to actively try hard at school would earn you verbal threats and physical violence.

While I don't have direct experience, I would be very surprised if this dynamic doesn't affect black boys.

Just leaving this here:

www.stylist.co.uk/people/coconut-racial-slur/490585

When I was growing up in south London the term ‘coconut’ was often used to describe people who were black and spoke too posh (too ‘white’) and/or who dated a white person (particularly for black women who dated white guys). The people using it may have believed that these people were in some way betraying their race and therefore they had the right to call them this, but I never heard it used to describe someone who was in any way denigrating their race for favour with white people.

The 65 year old (white) comedian, Bill Maher was asked by a guest to come and do chores, and said the house n*** expression. There was a massive outcry.

I don't think this case could succeed because of the Maya case. The Judge overturned the initial case on appeal because Maya's belief was a common belief, not, as the previous Tribunal Chair had stated 'a belief not worthy in a civilised society (near enough). It was not a fringe academic theory. If this case succeeded, it would mean that any thought or action was protected by law unless it was Nazism e.g. Even the case of the Vegan and his belief, he was an extreme, so veganism itself is not protected. This sort of case is so contradictory which if won, could result, either in a deluge of cases on the 'barking mad' scale, clogging up the courts.

On another point CRT came out of Harvard as an alternative to class based discrimination. CRT is said to be the basis of all inequality. This lets the wealthy, privileged Harvardians off the hook, so big banks and businesses love it. It has been imported lock stock over here and doesn't travel well. Those privileged people can still dictate the terms of debate and have moved out of University into top jobs. It's a middle class win, win.

I can't figure-out the argument Khanom is using here.

I think she is arguing that being allowed to use the racist language that she reckons someone else in The Race Trust employed, is a protected belief.

Or that using racist terms is standard discourse in critical race theory and so should be protected under the law.

I don't reckon CRT advocates are going to be too pleased with Khanom's efforts, intended-or-not, to saddle CRT with an association with it using racist terms as 'standard discourse'. That's gonna hurt.

I wonder if Khanom has legal representation at the hearing? It sees to be one that if she loses, she generates even more bad publicity for herself and (now very appropriately-named) The Race Trust, and if she wins...she generates even more bad publicity for herself and The Race Trust. I can't imagine many educational establishments would be happy to sign-up with an organisation which reckons using racist language is a protected belief.

I wonder if the BNP or The National Front could have gone down this route?

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

People need to stop lying on this thread. This is NOT what Coconut means and it isn’t used in this way at all.

Also, Damilola Taylor was killed because his thick murderers thought he was ‘lippy’. It had nothing to do with how he dressed.

Veet
When I was growing up in south London the term ‘coconut’ was often used to describe people who were black and spoke too posh (too ‘white’) and/or who dated a white person (particularly for black women who dated white guys).

More lies.

I'm in South London. White Son-In-Law. DD hasn't been called a coconut.

Coconut is a term some use for Black people who vocally disparage their own, in the quest for 'cookies' from White people.

Don't blame Black people for terms arising from the seediness of racism, enforced divisions and prejudice.

I went to Grammar school nobody ever called me a coconut.

This narrative that if a Black person is aspirational and educated = other Black people call them names, needs to stop. As does the actions of a few meaning all Black people think and act in the same way.

We are not a monolith and it's extremely narrow-minded to present that we are.

Hi just wanted to comment I am black this thread had deeply concerned me

Firstly the words coon, house negro uncle to ect

Have NOT been reclaimed they are Racist terms

Secondly the women who is sueing and called Calvin those awful names is NOT Black she is Asian and I can’t believe people are so relaxed about someone trying to get Rasical abuse protected

I often get these terms used on me one for daring to be married to someone white

But increasingly buy progressives who think it’s ok to racially abuse black conservatives
“The uppity black” is hated more than any other

I have to say I get racially abused far more than I ever have the far right

This why the Home Secretary suffers racial abuse and eveyone keeps silent she’s the wrong type of asisn I guess 🤷‍♀️But most Asian like black people are not progressive on most issues so 🤷‍♀️
It’s always bizarre getting called a coconut by someone with a BLM sticker or anti racist sticker in their Twitter bio

Doesn't this go to show that if you're using words that have historically been offensive slurs, or whose meaning is currently contentious, you should be using them carefully, and in a clear academic context?

ie not casually bandying them around on Twitter.

I think the left kid them selves their is no racists on their side and often don’t see the soft Raeism of the left

Black people are not a monolith

You don’t get a free pass of making racial slurs because your not white

Not all black people feel white peoples are oppressing them

Collective guilt based on race is Rasict
So not all black people what to blame all whites because some white people are Rasict

And viewing somone as oppressed based on their colour alone is Rasict

Beowulfa

Doesn't this go to show that if you're using words that have historically been offensive slurs, or whose meaning is currently contentious, you should be using them carefully, and in a clear academic context?

ie not casually bandying them around on Twitter.
agreed but she ment to be racist and because she’s Asian and on the left she thought no one would mind 🤷‍♀️

This is one of the big issues. CRT is a US based ideology and is therefore culturally quite different from the UK. I think terms like BAME are coming into disrepute because they lump everyone together. Theories such as this always comes unstuck when played out irl. We are all individuals with our cultural heritage playing a part in who we are. There will come a point when theorising without addressing wider society and its impacts will come into disrepute and this new stuff is showing how wide the cracks are.