In the video “Revealed: The charity turning UK universities woke”, Professor James Orr from Cambridge University critically examines the role of Advance HE, a charity organisation, towards universities adopting “woke” ideologies. The video highlights Advance HE’s role in promoting progressive policies within academic institutes, which impact university culture (including teaching, research, and general language used in the environment) and administrative processes (e.g., admissions). Particularly, two academics at Cambridge University Professor Arif Ahmed and Dr Vincent Harinam were interviewed to puts forth the argument that the implementations of Advance HE-based policies may negative impact free speech, academic freedom, and the overall educational environment in the UK.
Professor Ahmed and Dr Harinam focus on two aspects on the culture of racism in universities, yet both converge on some points surrounding issues of supporting evidence. Specifically, Professor Ahmed argues that there is no evidence that staff trainings such as implicit bias training and anti-racism training lead to positive outputs in various admissions and administrative processes. Dr Harinam argues that there is so far no actual evidence to suggest that universities are racist in the first place.
The positionality of Professor Ahmed and Dr Harinam is a valid one, and perhaps treads a careful line between judgment and evidence. The validity of their views is that it is often a healthy and particularly scientific attitude to base any judgment of reality on the evidence that supports or negates the judgment. Without evidence, there is a substantial weakening of an argument and in its worst case, is mere wishful thinking. Even should one overlook the theoretical importance of evidence, Professor Ahmed’s positionality is already well known in psychology, under the attitude-behaviour gap. The attitude-behaviour gap posits that the change of one’s attitude (or the willingness to change one’s behaviour) is no guarantee for a change in actual behaviour.
However, there are caveats to this way of thinking. Firstly, the lack of evidence should not mean that the argument itself becomes invalid. In fact, many important thoughts in the past started without evidence, and changes in policy may bring forth the wanted evidence. Relatedly, the lack of evidence also should not mean that certain thoughts should be abandoned altogether – it may be, for example, that the method of anti-racism staff training implementations may be improved. Secondly, one can also question how the evidence was measured, which are purported to be lacking in the two academics’ arguments. For example, how was racism measured? If, for example, we are simply basing racism based on internal reports, we will need to uncover whether there were barriers to reporting (such that the actual underlying numbers are under- or mis-represented in the reporting frequency). There are questions also as to whether there are incidents of racisms that may be difficult to measure and report (e.g., less visible behaviours).
Hi Young-Jin,
Thank you for your insightful reflection. Your balanced perspective on Advance HE’s role in UK universities is great to read.
You really highlight well that the debate on Advance HE’s policies is complex. A balanced approach valuing evidence-based practices while being open to improving methods is essential for developing inclusive and equitable educational environments. Perhaps it would be beneficial to explore new ways of measuring and addressing racism within universities to ensure that these policies are both effective and evidence-based. What are your thoughts on how we can develop more comprehensive measurement tools?
James
Hello James, thank you for your helpful comment. I completely agree with you, that we need to focus on an approach that values evidence-based practices while being open to improving methods for developing inclusive and equitable educational environments. In terms of developing more comprehensive measurement tools, there is no single method of measuring complex human behaviours, as each method presents its own set of pros and cons. Perhaps diversifying measurements would be important. For example, an organisation may continue practices of reporting incidents but one with lowered barriers (e.g., anonymity, transparency, protection of reporter, reporting through a third party). There may also be focus groups or interviews, where people can be more open to personal thoughts. In case for those who may find interviews uncomfortable, there may be annual surveys. Last but not least, because what people say may not always match with how people behave, it may be useful to also create a behavioural measurement.
Hi Young-Jin. Thanks for sharing your post in response to the role of Advance HE. I can also see you’ve worked to be balanced here – and it would be great to hear what your personal perspective is if you feel able to share. For example, what’s your view on the anti-racism training at UAL?
I’d also love to hear more about what you think the implications are for your context at UAL.
Hello Carys, thank you so much for your comment! Yes, given the complex nature of the topic, I’ve worked hard to write a balanced viewpoint. The implementation of anti-racism policies is unquestionably important, yet, based on the video, I could also see how the way these policies are implemented and measured could be improved. With an improved implementation and measurement (I have written a reply on some measurement methods in my reply to James below), I believe we can do justice to further enhancing inclusivity, diversity, and safety in the university environment and beyond. In terms of anti-racism training at UAL, I both agree and disagree with Professor Ahmed (in the video) when he discussed the effectiveness of anti-racism training. On the one hand, I share my concerns regarding the effectiveness of the training itself – after all, it’s not easy to change a person’s attitude through a 30-minute training session; and as psychological evidence has shown, the changing of attitudes does not necessarily translate to the change of behaviour (there can also be changes in behaviours without the changing of attitudes, which has its own set of issues). On the other hand, I strongly disagree with Professor Ahmed’s implications that we should do without anti-racism training. This is because I believe that the effectiveness of anti-racism training comes in two forms: the implementation of the training’s content (which Professor Ahmed seems to primarily talk about) and the symbolic message of a cultural direction. On the latter, UAL is actively promoting itself as an anti-racism and inclusive institute via anti-racism training. In doing so, this sends out a clear message to both current and potential employees/students, with regards to the cultural identity of UAL and, consequently, what the expectations are in being part of the institute. In doing so, UAL is effectively (and as a long-term, stable goal) generating and perpetuating a culture of inclusivity; the promotion of this culture can be instrumental in shifting/selecting behaviours and thinking towards a more inclusive environment. All in all, I am supportive of Advance HE’s directions (including anti-racism training) but wish for a better method of implementation and monitoring.