24 December 2015
Students or Vice Chancellors a Threat to Democracy?
Who is responsible for the lack of debate in universities?
by Lynda Goetz
It is quite possible that enough has been said and written about Oriel College’s reaction to student demands to remove the statue of Sir Cecil Rhodes (1852-1902), but since it ties in with the general attitude of universities to their students these days (something which may well need more discussion), it is perhaps worth just a few more lines.
For those who have been too busy panicking about Christmas presents, Christmas parties, Christmas provisions or how to placate those difficult people in their lives over Christmas and have not been keeping up with anything other than major international events, the ‘hoo-hah’ is all about a statue of the famous man which graces the entrance to the oldest college foundation in Oxford. A number of students claim that both this statue and a commemorative plaque should be removed because forcing ethnic minority students to walk past them amounts to ‘violence’ against them. This rather absurd claim is apparently on the grounds that the mining magnate, colonialist and founder of Rhodesia (now known as Zimbabwe, of course) was racist and helped pave the way for apartheid. The main thrust of much of the commentary thus far is, as L.P. Hartley states in the opening line of his novel ‘The Go-Between’, “The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.”
Professor David Lowenthal used this line as the title for his classic written in 1985, (recently updated under the title ‘The Past is a Foreign Country – Revisited’). Rewriting history is something most of us attribute to dictators and authoritarian rulers of both right and left. Professor Lowenthal illustrates how, in fact, this is something increasingly done by us all as we question, erase and reinterpret history from our own modern perspective, instead of examining it from a factual or textual basis. The students’ attempts to expunge evidence of Sir Cecil Rhodes from the college history are perhaps, as Sir Charles Moore suggests, excusable on the grounds of their youthful naivety. The response of the college authorities is not so excusable. They have agreed to take down the plaque, saying they do not share “Cecil Rhodes’ values or condone his racist actions or views”. They are consulting with planning authorities and those in charge of listed buildings to see whether or not they are permitted to remove the statue. As the building is Grade II* listed and Historic England have already said that any application to remove/demolish the statue would be granted on “architectural not moral grounds”, their rather pusillanimous and pathetic response to the demands of a small and vociferous minority of politically correct agitators may not in fact prove to be that much of a problem in this case.
Cecil Rhodes made a lot of money in Africa. He wanted to put some of that towards education and by his will created the Rhodes Scholarships, the aim of which was to educate international leaders committed to public service at the University of Oxford. According to the official Rhodes Scholarship website, (www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/history) scholars are chosen on the “criteria of excellence in intellect, character, leadership and commitment to service”. Trustees were appointed to oversee Rhodes’ vision and he expected them to adapt his plans to respond to changing circumstances. The original 57 scholarships (32 of which were for the United States) have been expanded and over the first 100 years from the founding of the Scholarships nearly another 40 were added, although not all continued. In 2003, to mark the centenary of the Rhodes scholarships and to continue the historic connection with Africa and specifically to leadership for Africa, the Mandela Rhodes Foundation was created, which provides scholarships for African students. One of the recipients of this honour, a young South African by the name of Ntokozo Qwabe, who was funded for his undergraduate law degree at Keble college, is now leading the campaign to remove the statue. Accused of “disgraceful hypocrisy”, his response is to argue that “it was never his money. All that he looted must absolutely be returned immediately. I’m no beneficiary of Rhodes. I’m a beneficiary of the resources and labour of my people which Rhodes pillaged and slaved”. Apart from the fact that the word he probably meant to use was “enslaved”, this argument lacks any of the excellence in intellectual understanding which Rhodes Scholars are supposed to possess and certainly a total lack of any historical understanding (not to mention turning an interesting blind eye to the involvement of his fellow South African, Nelson Mandela). Rhodes was not necessarily a likeable man, many high achievers are not, but his views on the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race, although not shared by all his contemporaries, were not out of tune with many of them and his generally arrogant attitude to other races not unusual for his time. The fact that today we do not share those views is irrelevant. The reason his statue stands at the entrance to his old college is because he left money to Oriel. The reason the Scholarships are named after him is because he left part of his fortune to set them up. The suggestion by the journalist and broadcaster Bidisha that “the prestigious Rhodes scholarship in his name can easily be renamed and indeed I wonder why it’s taking so long” seems somewhat to miss the point. As Professor Mary Beard says, “you can’t whitewash Rhodes out history and continue using his cash”.
If we were to take the Oxford student protesters’ arguments to their logical conclusion we would end up removing a great deal more than a single statue or renaming some scholarships. Perhaps we should start re-assessing all those buildings, statues and artefacts created, donated or designed by all those historical figures and personalities whose views are out of tune with modern thinking? Any step down that route would make us as a society no better than those Daesh (Isil/Isis) terrorists, whose destruction earlier this year of artefacts and statues dating from the Assyrian and Akkadian empires drew comment and condemnation from around the world. The reason for such destruction? The fact that the terrorists disagree with everything the artefacts represent. In wreaking such devastation they seek to wipe out and remove all material evidence of a civilisation of which they disapprove. Whilst not suggesting for one second that the students are terrorists, they are using terror tactics to try and achieve their views.
If we can possibly excuse the students on the grounds of their ignorance (although it does beg the question of their education and scholarship), on what grounds can we possibly excuse those running the college? According to a letter to the press signed by a number of academics, the weak attitude of university authorities in caving in to student demands is stifling debate because “self-censorship is turning campuses into over-sanitised ‘safe spaces’ “. According to the writers, this “threatens the very fabric of democracy”. They argue that “an open and democratic society requires people to have the courage to argue against ideas that they disagree with or even find offensive”. How have we got to the point where Vice-Chancellors have to be urged by a group of fellow academics to “stand-up” to extremist students? Why on earth have so many universities succumbed to demands to ban everything from sombreros (racist if not worn by Mexicans apparently) to men (on the grounds that “they don’t have a uterus” and therefore should not be permitted to debate abortion) at the behest of bigoted students? The conclusion seems to be that students who are offended by opposing views or who are “too dim” to understand that honouring a benefactor is not the same as endorsing his views are perhaps not yet ready to be at university. What is the excuse though for those running the places?
‘Safe space’ is an expression which has reached us from the US. Its origins go back to the 70s, but its use in the present university context is relatively recent. The idea is that people of all identities are entitled to a safe space to express who they are. This initially sounds eminently reasonable until you realise that it also means that those who disagree with you are not entitled to be there. South Park, the American adult animated sitcom, created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone for the Comedy Central television network and running since the early nineties, has in Season 19’s episodes in the last few months made fun of this phenomenon and indeed of the whole PC movement. A new Principal, PC Principal, has been appointed at South Park Elementary School – suddenly free speech of any kind becomes a thing of the past. The major difference between this and the current situation pertaining at a number of British universities seems to be that this is student-driven and those in charge are simply reacting to the bullying tactics of the students. What exactly are they afraid of? Why are they caving in to terror tactics, or do they actually agree with these ‘fringe’ views?
Oxford University was the first to be created in medieval England and there is some truth in the idea that revolutionary student activities have been synonymous with university life since those days. Student militancy in Southern European institutions, Bologna in particular, was endemic for nearly two centuries and interestingly student control was very much based on the economic stranglehold the students had over the lecturers. Is that, as the academic authors of the recent letter suggest, part of the problem today? With students paying a much higher proportion of the costs of their education in today’s system, are the authorities more inclined to treat them as customers and clients? Alan B Cobban, author of ‘The Medieval Universities’, makes the point that “Where student powers were most extensive……(it) often led to a brand of intolerance and narrowing of democratic channels…” (http://www.historytoday.com/alan-b-cobban/student-power-middle-ages).
The past may well be a foreign country, but that is not to say that there is nothing to be learnt from looking at it.
