A radical shift in policy and practice is taking place in U.K. Higher Education. Higher education institutions and UKRI Research Councils are now advertising student opportunities with race in the eligibility criteria. To be eligible for such schemes, students must meet a requirement that is based on the immutable characteristic of race. Not socioeconomic status. Not first-generation university student status. These schemes target students who are black (or mixed with black), as in the case of one UKRI student research placement scheme, which states the below eligibility criteria:
These awards are open solely to Black British students (Black or Black British African, Black or Black British Caribbean, Black or Black British other or Mixed Black or Black British). Applicants will self-identify and sign a disclaimer to the effect that the information they provide is correct.
Many will question whether such blatant racial discrimination can be legal, and that needs to be challenged. But I’ve been thinking about this from another angle. The implications of race requirements on student opportunities are not abstract. No doubt some individuals will benefit from such opportunities. But has due consideration been given to some of the issues and implications of such a change in practice?
Race eligibility requirements necessarily imply that being black (or being mixed-race with black) is a disadvantage, and that those who fall into this racial category require extra support and opportunities – regardless of socioeconomic circumstances. While some people believe this (and are entitled to), others do not and would strongly contest such an assertion. Until recently, this was always just a view held by some people. But the practice of race eligibility requirements on opportunities entails that this view is correct and imposes it on students.
There are some obvious issues with using race in eligibility criteria. Not all students (even those the opportunities are aimed at) will welcome them. Some students might find it stigmatising, and some might prefer to be in fair competition with all their peers – not just ones of the same racial background. And some students will feel instinctively uncomfortable about the use of race in eligibility criteria, as they do not routinely consider race or think of themselves or others in terms of racial categories with social significance. That’s certainly how I feel about it.
Race eligibility requirements also present challenges for families. In the case of some families (such as my own), one sibling (Student A) would be eligible whereas another sibling (Student B) would not – as one is mixed-race and the other is white. And this is despite them having had the same upbringing and the same access to social and material resources. This makes no sense, and will be very uncomfortable for the family involved. Not all families will welcome race requirements on student opportunities, and nor should they.
Now extend the family situation to peer groups, schools, other educational settings and communities. Britain is a diverse country. I know plenty of students from less affluent backgrounds who would be ineligible for such opportunities because of their race. We now have a situation where some students in a year group can apply for a specific research placement or funding, but other students in the same year group cannot – because their skin is lighter. So then, race requirements for student opportunities can be seen as grossly unfair and even racist.
Perhaps differential treatment based on race isn’t such a problem if people of different races live in separate spaces and never interact. But that isn’t Britain. Mixed-race is one of the fastest growing demographics in Britain, which says something very positive about this country. But I am concerned about how race requirements on opportunities might affect attitudes and beliefs about race going forward, and stoke racial tension – moving the country backwards instead of forward.
I do not support race requirements for education and training opportunities in the U.K. under any circumstances, because they are inevitably discriminatory and divisive and frequently miss their target of addressing unfairness. I believe a better approach is to improve opportunities and educational prospects in areas of socioeconomic deprivation (a better proxy of disadvantage than race) – that is, if the goal is to widen participation and benefit society as a whole. This might disproportionately benefit those from some racial backgrounds – if more people from those racial backgrounds live in deprived areas. And when race-based discrimination does occur in higher education institutions, this must be taken seriously and dealt with by the law. We must strive for equality of opportunity.
Higher education institutions and UKRI Research Councils (informed and guided by ‘equality, diversity and inclusion’) are choosing the path of race requirements for some student opportunities. For those of us who are concerned by this, here are some questions we might ask our politicians and policymakers:
- Have students and the wider public been surveyed about how comfortable they are with the use of racial categories as eligibility criteria for certain opportunities, or whether they would prefer an emphasis on socioeconomic background (regardless of race)?
- Have the possible consequences been considered of such policies on community cohesion and on attitudes toward different racial groups, especially in areas with less opportunity?
- Has research been conducted to provide an estimate of how many eligible students may be excluded from such opportunities because they do not wish to disclose their racial background or simply will not apply because the criteria include race?
- Is there high-quality evidence that targeting individuals by race rather than by socioeconomic status is a more successful strategy for recruiting and retaining first-generation university students?
This article first appeared on Amber Muhinyi’s Substack. Subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“ Why Are British Universities Discriminating on the Basis of Race?“ Because the Guardian reading academic establishment and their Guardian reading administrative gophers hate everything indigenous to the United Kingdom.
They think that the indigenous whites have made this country, not through hard work, sacrifice and considerable ingenuity and spirit, but through climbing on the back of black folks. This view justifies a bit of ‘levelling up’ where poor old whitey can now take a hike, while everyone else gets a chance.
When I say white folks, I mean white folks like us, not white folks like them. They will still have their tenured positions, and nice houses and holidays.
“They think that the indigenous whites have made this country, not through hard work, sacrifice and considerable ingenuity and spirit, but through climbing on the back of black folks.”
Well that’s what they say. Some of them might believe it. Others just lie – divide and conquer, achieve political objectives, get power, keep power, engineer a victim class who will vote for them etc.
Yes, my initial hunch was that “levelling up” had something to do with it. But this is living in the past: You don’t undo historical injustices, real as they may have been, with an equal and opposite injustice visited upon the distant descendants of the original perpetrators!
Is Hitler’s great great great great grandson to be implicated in the Holocaust?
If my great great…. x20 grandfather were an 18th century slave trader, should I be punished by being denied a university placement?
Absolutely.
“Applicants will self-identify”
So why not simply self-identify as black?
If people can self-identify as any sex they want, then why not race too?
That was considered comedy gold in the 80’s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2zMrjBLwn8&t=113s
The question should be why are British universities allowed to discriminate on the basis of race?
Well, are they allowed? Or is this just the usual bunch of Blair-era functionaries who don’t give a f**k?
Loosely related: Why Ivy League universities really discriminate on the basis of vaxx status….
https://vigilantfox.substack.com/p/yale-exposed-follow-the-money-they?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
Imagine what it must be like for genuinely talented black students who could easily get in on merit? They will inevitably be lumped in with the lower achievers who needed extra help to get a place.
As usual Agenda 2030. In order to ensure a reset first of all our current society must be hacked apart and destroyed to the point where tribalism takes over – blacks, Muslims, Christians, Anglo-Saxons, and so on. Once we are fighting amongst ourselves the depradations being inflicted by the “elites” will be disregarded in favour of our inconsequential local battles.
Simply put, divide and conquer.
“Diversity” only ever had one aim – destruction and control.
I shudder at the incalculable evil that is being played out. It appears bottomless, evil of ANY description purely for evil’s sake.
‘Self identify’ is the key. Someone needs the chutzpah to take this all the way. Either universities are racist or we can all be transracial on our own say so.
This is way, way too analytical and over-generous in the author’s attempts at justifying such a policy (albeit being ultimately opposed). A student’s application to these work-experience placements, research grants or whatever they are, should be accepted or rejected on the basis of meeting academic entry requirements. No more, no less. It really is as simple as that.
Some racists policies were enacted by some racist policymakers and they should be held accountable for it. It really is not that complicated.
US Universities have been doing this for years; about to be ruled unconstitutional I would bet.
Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College – Wikipedia
Also UK universities discriminate on the basis of educational and socio economic background.
Elites and race hustlers, divide and conquer, keep the middle and working classes down, create a generation of victims who will vote for you.
I don’t much like the list of questions at the end. IMO they lead down a rabbit hole. We either stop at equality of access/opportunity – no discrimination – or we go down the road of social engineering, equality of outcome. The second road IMO leads to damnation (and those pushing it probably don’t much believe in it anyway).
Stop putting people into boxes to suit your agenda.
“addressing unfairness”
Life’s unfair. Get used to it. Feel like a victim or take charge of your life. I know which of those two choices leads to a happier life.
Are single race pale Asians included as black, and if they are, does black really mean not white?
This is utterly disgusting.
The only discrimination which is both allowed and celebrated in the UK is discrimination against the British white working class – particularly if they are male.
I loathe the left-wing British Establishment with a passion.
Academically, and career wise, Indians, Chinese, and other Asian people do better than whites. This would indicate that white people are NOT keeping them down in some kind of racist hellhole. When President Obama left office, he was asked why he did not do more for black people. He replied that he was the President for all Americans, and that black people should educate themselves, stop splitting up their families and indulging in crime. Equality is all well and good, but that is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes as wokery seeks to want to achieve these days.
Simple: Follow the money = China
In over 2000 years, the indigenous black people on the continent of Africa never built or launched a single seaworthy boat to allow them to escape Africa. There was not a single two storey building built, just basic huts made with wood straw or stones. Not a single statue was erected to an influential black person. It was only when the dreaded white man arrived did that change. They don’t act or think or create as white people do that statement was made by a black priest.
Don’t get mad – join a centre Right challenger party today.
If universities are allowed to discriminate like this legally, it must now be legal for renters of property to return to being able to return to the 1950’s signs “No Blacks” or potential employers to insist on only white applicants. Are we really wanting to return to the way we were racially in the 1950’s which I had thought we have now developed far beyond and become a largely neutral race country. There will always be some people, hopfully now in a small minority who are racist, but one would think universities would be a beacon of intelligence and not act so stupidly as this and realise racial discrimination works both ways.
I’m rather lucky that I went to university in the mid 1960s, when intellectual ability was the sole admission criterion. Although that doesn’t really explain how I got in!
This current discrimination is a natural consequence of Bliar’s policy that 50% of school leavers must go to university.
So the racial discrimination will ensure that the majority of graduates with useless degrees, dead end jobs and stonking great loans to pay back will be people of colour.
It won’t be long before the Grauniad crowd will be complaining about the law of unintended consequences
We must not allow public institutions to discriminate against people just because of an accident of birth.
I know the text seems to imply you can self identify as black and the university can’t challenge it but that isn’t really the point.
The UK used to lead the way in racial harmonisation, from our forceful removal of the slave trade to no black segregation for black American troops that were billeted in this country when their own army wished to do so up until the few short years ago when race was not really an issue for most people.
Now it seems that various parties are hell bent on making it an issue again, even against the wishes of the majority of the population.