Reader TTS

Craig Simpson 27 August 2022 5:27pm BST Arriving on campus this autumn, students may find their modules peculiarly devoid of Geoffrey Chaucer, Jane Austen, or Shakespeare’s sonnets. This is

for their own good, according to the many British universities, which have sought to “decolonise the curriculum” and liberate courses from the inequities of “white, Western and Eurocentric”

knowledge. The syllogism seemingly accepted across many university departments runs like this: Western knowledge is a product of colonialism; colonialism is an evil to be opposed; therefore

Western knowledge must be opposed. In this view, it is incumbent upon academics to change curricula – megalithic “knowledge” is to be replaced by pluralistic “knowledges”, and the

“Euro-centric” canon is to be replaced by one that is more diverse. DEALING WITH A ‘COLONIAL LEGACY’ The view can be summarised in a Royal Veterinary College’s document, seen by The

Telegraph, which states: “Knowledge as used in education, is underpinned by the Western or global-north narrative, which has consistently been viewed as being intellectually and culturally

superior and has been perpetuated to the exclusion of other global sources of knowledge and cultures. “Western colonialism enabled this, and the colonial legacy has endured in education.”

Staff across numerous institutions have argued that it is for the benefit of students, with a goal of tackling the discrepancy in average marks between white students and those from ethnic

minority backgrounds. This “attainment gap” is central to the concerns of the institutions, which are eagerly decolonising their courses, and it appears academics pursuing this work believe

that moving courses away from the white and Western will close the gulf. Decolonisation is deemed necessary to boost grades and, as a missive at one institution informed staff, academics

must ditch material traditionally revered by the “WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic)”. Prof Frank Furedi, an education expert at the University of Kent, said:

“They assume that an inclusive pedagogy helps students gain confidence by teaching material that is relevant to their lives.” He has argued that a striving for relevance means the safely

familiar is taught to students, rather than the challenging, with professors often offering learners material comfortingly created by people of the “same identity group”. The effects of this

pedagogical philosophy have been seen in numerous universities, including Stirling, which The Telegraph revealed had removed Jane Austen from one English module, replacing her with

African-American author Toni Morrison for the stated reason of “decolonising” the curriculum. The University of Leicester, in a similarly stated effort to “decolonise” its modules, removed

Chaucer from its mediaeval literature course, and Salford chose to no longer assess students on the “white Western” sonnet form. ‘COLONIALIST’ MUSICAL NOTATION The issue is not just

literary. At Oxford, one professor took issue with the teaching of “colonialist” musical notation and, at Cambridge, a module seeking to “decolonise the ear” aims to deconstruct classical

music and its links to “neoliberal systems of power”. At the Royal Birmingham Conservatoire, the “Black Mozart” Chevalier de Saint-Georges is used to teach sonatas, replacing Beethoven. Away

from the arts and humanities, Durham University has sought to address “almost entirely (or even completely) white” mathematics, and the Royal Veterinary College is pursuing its own

programme of decolonisation. The common culpability of these subjects, even those scientific disciplines rooted in (presumably universal) objectivity, is that they form part of a privileged

“Western knowledge”. According to internal documents, teaching staff at Solent are focused on: “Decentring white, Western and Eurocentric subject knowledge and drawing instead on global,

diverse and marginalised perspectives”. Salford warns in one decolonisation guide against prioritising of “Western sources of knowledge”, when students may have “alternative knowledge

systems”. Winchester has shared a guide on decolonising, which urges academics to “de-centre Western-dominated system of knowledge generation”. Similarly at Aston, there are ongoing efforts

to address “Eurocentric philosophies and narratives and their impacts on pedagogy”. PROBLEMS OF CURRICULA ‘WHITENESS’ Abertay’s psychology department notes in an update on “decolonisation”

that the discipline lacks representation, as “most psychological science [was] conducted by white males in the early years”. The problem of curricula “whiteness” has also been raised at

Liverpool John Moores, where an English department identified the necessity that “the unspoken power of whiteness should be examined and challenged in the core curriculum”. At Oxbridge too,

the pattern persists. Cambridge students have been told that the canon of classical music can be seen as an “imperial phenomenon” and, at Oxford, concerns have been raised about a classical

“white hegemony”. Many institutions stress that teaching must always incorporate the ideas of decolonisation: St Andrew’s history courses have been ensuring staff follow “inclusive and

anti-colonial practices”, and staff at Edinburgh Napier “challenge both colonial views and Western hegemonies within higher education”. Internal diversity chiefs promote this kind of view in

many cases, and institutions themselves have professionalised the proselytising for diversity. SOAS University of London, for example, has developed its own frequently shared “toolkit” for

decolonising, which warns against courses replete with “Westernness” or “whiteness”. Kingston has developed a similar toolkit, while some universities have allowed students to simply tell

teaching staff what they should be learning during the course of their degree. FAR FROM SELF-EVIDENT TO GENERAL PUBLIC The inherent virtue of this approach is unquestioned across numerous

departments, internal documents suggest, although to the public at large, the virtues of reappraising Western knowledge are far from self-evident. But internal policy claims that it is to

tackle the discrepancy in average marks between white students and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. In 2019, there was an attainment gap of 13 per cent between white students who

achieved a 2:1 or first-class degree and black, Asian and ethnic minority students who did so, according to SOAS University of London. Aston, in Birmingham, has stated in internal notes that

its decolonising work “directly informs initiatives that address our attainment gaps”. Salford, which dropped sonnets from a creative writing course in the cause of decolonisation, has

stressed in internal messaging that: “Inclusive curricula reflect and cater for a diverse society and the learning needs of students from a wide range of backgrounds.” Leicester has cited

its decolonisation work as “response to the Race Award Gap”, while the University of Aberdeen’s “decolonisation steering group” cites addressing the attainment gap as a key issue. Kingston’s

toolkit for decolonising aims primarily to “improve the experience, skills and attainment of all students”, and Surrey, which has steered its courses away from “WEIRD” knowledge, has done

so in the context of ensuring the “elimination of the awarding gap for black students”. At Canterbury, the drive for a “diverse and inclusive” curriculum is aimed at closing the attainment

gap; Oxford Brookes has been decolonising to achieve the same result. This objective is repeated across academia. The SOAS decolonising toolkit, taken up by many UK institutions, makes clear

that everything occidental, colonial, and white is being addressed in the context of closing the gulf in grades. RISE IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS Alongside the language of “decolonisation”,

there is an increasing tendency towards terms such as “internationalise”. The widespread enthusiasm for diminishing perceived Western European influence comes amid a general rise in

international students, many from diverse backgrounds, coming to study in the UK. According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, there were 605,000 foreign students in the UK as of

2020/21, up from 556,625 in 2019/20. China is the main country of origin for incoming students, followed by India, Nigeria, and Hong Kong, according to the data. Overseas intake could rise

by 50 per cent in the next five years, according to figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service. This upward trend is evident in institutions that are committed to

decolonising, including Salford, which saw a sharp rise in the intake of internal students in 2018/19 (1,474) to 2020/21 (2,921). This trend was clear in 2019, prior to the disruption of the

pandemic, with overseas undergraduate students rising by 51 per cent at Oxford and 65 per cent at Cambridge. This carries with it an increase in income from international student fees,

which average around £24,000 a year compared to the £9,250 of UK students. STUDENTS MAY BE SOLD SHORT Universities may understandably be keen to attract this lucrative cohort of students

from abroad, and make education as pleasingly familiar for them when they arrive. However, some academics have argued that diluting the education they may have sought out in the UK – Western

science and the literary canon – may be selling them short. Last year, Prof Paul Harper-Scott left his position at Royal Holloway, University of London, in protest over “dogmatic” attitudes

to decolonisation in universities. Prof David Abulafia, a historian at Cambridge University, previously warned that decolonisation risks “the ideological infusion of this woke ideology in

interpretation of the past, which is actually a betrayal of what history is about”. “The decolonisation of education runs in parallel with the project of levelling down the curriculum,” Prof

Furedi said. “[There is a] growing tendency to call into question the moral authority of great works of literature and of Western science – and all in the name of inclusion. But inclusion

to what? “A diminished curriculum that avoids challenging students. Decolonisation and inclusion policies patronise undergraduates and communicates the idea that they are not able to

appreciate the best of Western culture. In practice, the mantra of inclusion excludes serious thought.”