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.
When is an MP going to find the balls to ask about the shape of Starmer’s family. This raging hypocrite who was the first to shriek about the rotter Johnson should be held to the same standard for his inability to keep it in his trousers. Every time I see Starmer’s dead eyes I feel physically sick.
Do we know that he can’t keep it in his trousers? When I look at him I get the exact opposite impression, and wonder if he really is his sons father. Starmer always seems to have this odd expression on his face, as if he’s wearing womens underwear and it’s been riding up too high
Actually thinking about it, this would explain why he was raging about Boris’ multiple children so much. Starmer viewed Boris as an example of masculinity which only served to highlight his own lack thereof
It’s pretty credible there is a birth certificate etc and the mother is well known in labour party circles.
Am I bothered?
Channeling Catherine Tate there, Hux.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/kathys-tcws-week-in-review-2/
As Kathy Gyngell makes clear in this article we are now creating a class of political prisoners which should be not just upsetting but extremely worrying for all of us.
“WHILE IT’S been another good week for TCW it’s been an appalling one for freedom and justice in the UK – the freedom on which we once prided ourselves and for which so many people over the centuries have suffered or lost their lives – from Magna Carta, through Wat Tyler, Martin Luther, Latimer and Ridley (burnt at the stake for their beliefs), Thomas Paine, William Cobbett, John Wilkes, the Chartists, to name but some. If Tommy Robinson is sent to Belmarsh on Monday he will be the latest in the line of martyrs to this cause.
His arrest on Saturday, as one member of the small TCW team put it to me, marks the end of civil society. If ever there was a set of trumped-up charges this one will go down in legal history. He has been charged with terror offences for failing to provide his phone password.
The Conservatives took us on this path to repression. I used to call it the imposition of woke orthodoxy. That was kind. They did more than preside over a rapid diminution of our freedoms culminating in Lockdown. By their hate and online hate legislation they silenced public debate about the impact of their extreme immigration policy (which the invisible Yvette Cooper has since made no attempt to stop, the reverse in fact). It was under the Tories that migrant hostels housing preponderantly young males from Africa and the Middle East were inflicted on communities around the country. The fearful Tories also in the same way stifled any public critique of Islam, though, in its fundamentalist form, it is frighteningly antithetical to political freedom, freedom of belief and tolerance – all once integral western values.”
It is difficult not to disagree with Kathy.
The way I see it, whether you’re talking about UK or US politics, there’s both sexes on both main parties and both sexes voting for them. It doesn’t matter the percentage split, what matters is it’s both male and female choosing a side, period. There’s no need to over-think this , it’s a no-brainer.
I couldn’t believe how many celebrities ( lots whom I don’t recognise, as they must be just famous in America ) are endorsing Harris. It’s depressing and tragic.
Same as if you look at footage from a Harris rally and a Trump rally. Same will translate across to British politics, or anywhere else for that matter. This is the reality, which the sh*t-stirrers who want to reduce everything down to a blame game or male vs female issue, find hard to acknowledge. People are individuals, no matter what angle you’re coming from or how you want to spin the facts to suit your bias.
So how to square this circle? The logic is clear. There can only be one next leader of Labour.
Eddie Izzard!
Hmm. it seemed so obvious until I wrote the words.
“I pause to observe how weak a word ‘misandry’ is. I leave you to supply a sharper word.”
Man-hater or Lesbian.
Amusing. One flaw: Starmer is a woman, an old hag, a trull.
https://image.vuukle.com/18c48c35-505b-4942-a845-0c1cddf835b5-4ab3d879-da14-4632-a351-4a6605c8493f
Here’s another dirty little secret. The breakdown of how many paedophiles face judicial proceedings by ethnicity.
The results may shock. Well probably not.
I wonder if it’s a result of feminism? White men shrivel at the thought of a confident woman?
Pity if so, because the feminism I espouse doesn’t hate men – just wants an equal share of stuff and fair access to opportunities.
I like men who know they are men and there’s no greater turn- off than someone who cravenly capitulates to big-mouths. The ultimate yuk is the weirdo who wants to wear our knickers and become one of us.
In this article as in everything, it’s easiest just to blame women when everything goes wrong.
The picture heading this article is one of my all time favourites. Evah!!!
Yup – that and pictures of them wearing face nappies sum them up perfectly
I have added the recent one of him drinking from a gilded goblet to my list of T2K favourites.
I like to see them in the face nappies. They all wore them and voted for them. We should never forget that.
If I was a betting man I would put a bet on Angela Rayner as the next Labour Leader and Prime Minister, propelled by the backing of some parts of the Labour movement. Probably early next year as Starmer implodes.
Of course the whole of Labour may implode and then who knows…
My wife’s view that he has those 2 women just blow him to protect himself from being removed
Interesting strategy!
Yet another interesting article by this frequent DS columnist.
I wonder if one of his future themes will be the Ottoman Empire (1299 – 1922) and possible reparations for the millions of its European victims over centuries, with a special chapter on slave trade. He is after all well placed for a thorough search.
Fundamentally, Left wing politics is a war against reality.
Net Zero is a war against physics, thermodynamics, engineering and economics.
“Human Rights” is a war against the rule of law.
“Tax and spend” is a war against arithmetic