The case of Geoffrey Sampson, the computing professor who has professed racist views, continues to make waves at Sussex University. A large open meeting on 23 May heard expressions of criticism, disdain and denunciation from many faculty and students. Gurminder Bhambra delivered the speech below, which drew a response from Martin Shaw in the meeting. This is followed by the email debate which ensued between them. 

In response to the article Sampson has written a lot of people have brought up the phrase ‘academic’ freedom’ – what I would like to talk about here is academic freedom, and academic responsibility.

The views Sampson has been peddling in the national media have nothing to do with any area of his research or teaching interests and yet he is using his status here at the university to gain both the space within which to articulate those views and to ascribe legitimacy to them. However inadvertently his comments came to be publicised within the wider national arena the point remains that he followed up on what had occurred by speaking to the national press and radio in his capacity as a professor at Sussex University.

Academic freedom, if it is to have any meaning separate and apart from freedom of speech, surely has to mean the freedom of an individual to undertake academic research in any area, however unpalatable that may be to others. Now what Sampson is arguing does not form any element of his academic research field, so as it is, the principle of academic freedom is being used to defend the articulation of personal prejudice in the public realm and not legitimate research endeavour. You may want to defend his freedom to speak on matters unrelated to research interests but I do not feel that the use of the phrase academic freedom is warranted in this instance.

In speaking on matters outside of his academic remit he should disassociate his personally held views from his status as Professor and if that is not possible then he should think about his responsibility as an academic at Sussex with accountabilities beyond research such as teaching and in this light reconsider what he has said.

I do not believe that it is possible to separate one’s professional life from the public articulation of personal views and hence any public intervention needs to be measured in terms of the other responsibilities one holds. It is the gross negligence of the responsibilities that Sampson has towards his students, colleagues and university that should be addressed as well as the racism inherent in the article itself.

Sampson’s personal prejudices have become public and it is to this fact that we must respond – and so this response is about publicly articulated prejudice and not about privately held prejudices although it is recognised that there are many different manifestations of these also present at the university in terms of gender, sexuality, class.

Sampson quite readily accepts that he is a racist – he uses the term racialist but states that this is synonymous with racist – and the tone and content of his article bear that out. One does not have to look much further than the sentence, ‘yellow-skinned Orientals tend to be rather brighter than whites, Negroes tend to be rather less bright’ and his solution to what he sees as a race problem being to keep the races physically apart, to have the racism of the article brought to the fore. When an individual labels himself as a racialist, and espouses views that are racist then where does the line between the right to academic freedom and the commitment to creating an environment free of racism, sexism, homophobia and other manifestations of intolerance lie?

Language matters - as does the context within which it is used – if a university tolerates intolerance and bigotry then at what price does it maintain the principle of academic freedom?

There is no such thing as a value-free definition of freedom - you can not simply say whatever you want – there are laws against incitement and the use of racist language is not tolerated. Where the boundaries of freedom lie can only be properly constructed by the communities within which these debates arise – and this is what we have the opportunity to work towards today. What needs to be balanced in any argument about academic freedom is the right to express views that go against the grain together with a responsibility for outcomes.

The university has defended Sampson’s continuing role here in the name of academic freedom and yet this very argument comes up against its commitment towards creating an environment free of discrimination – so where do we take a stand?

It has been mentioned that there have been no complaints about Sampson’s teaching or assessment of coursework; and further, that because his arguments relate to groups and not individuals he can allow for individual black students to do better than their white or Oriental classmates and hence his personal beliefs do not entail, or even espouse, discrimination. Indeed, he mentions that one should not treat individuals differently due to their race and retrospectively regrets the title of his piece ‘There is nothing wrong with racism (except the name)’ but not the actual content which justifies the title.

Taking the argument beyond the fairness or otherwise of Sampson’s treatment and assessment of his students I would like you for a moment to imagine yourself as a black undergraduate in your first year here at Sussex. Would you feel comfortable choosing an option for study taught by Sampson knowing that he believes you come from a group that collectively he places at the bottom of the intellectual spectrum? Would you have confidence in your tutor to assist you in developing your potential to its fullest capacity? Would you really feel that you would be fairly assessed by this man?

The inherent context that is created by this self-professed racialist/racist is not one of a level playing field – and as his argument, for what he sees as a race problem, is to keep the races physically apart through the institutions of the nation-state – how do you know that he actually wants you in his class and values your presence there? Or thinks that you should even have been allowed in the country in the first place? In the context of the current debates around immigration this is not an unimportant issue.

Where does this then leave the question of academic freedom for the students who may now choose not to take his courses – and this does not just apply to black students, I’m sure there would be students, regardless of their background, who would find his views offensive and not want to be taught by him.

The argument here is not to silence Sampson or to say that he shouldn’t have said what he did – but rather, that having said what he did, what are the likely consequences and how is the university going to respond to these? Firstly, in terms of reassuring students already here that if they do not want to be taught by Sampson their choice of academic options will not then be limited and secondly, addressing the concerns of potential students who may have been put off by Sampson’s comments in terms of coming to Sussex.

Black students already face many obstacles in terms of entering higher education and the promulgation of such views does nothing to make that easier – in fact it legitimises the situation of black students not coming to university. If you were a black student thinking about which university to go to – would you choose Sussex after what has just occurred? For you would only know of Sussex through what the media has reported and the fact that this is highly unrepresentative of life here would not be known. This surely damages the university’s commitment to widening participation and maintaining the diversity that is promoted as a feature of life here at Sussex.

What we have been provided with today is the opportunity to look at the way we deal with the issue of race within the university – this isn’t just about Sampson but it’s about picking up the carpet and looking underneath at the uncomfortable truths that perhaps we would rather not tackle. Where have we been failing in our commitment to creating a university that not only speaks of diversity but is diverse? What more could we do to create an environment where race is not an issue?

When I came to Sussex as an undergraduate in the early nineties I can honestly say that it was the first time that I had ever felt at home. I was born in Kenya and was brought here when I was two; growing up in Middlesex I always felt an outsider and whenever I went to India I was the ‘English’ cousin – so my sense of identity has not been unproblematic.

Coming to Sussex and getting involved in not just the rich academic life here, but being involved in student issues and other activities I felt a sense of belonging that I had not experienced before. I felt accepted for who I was and for what I brought to the situation in terms of my intellect and experience. The fact that I looked any different to the people around me was never once an issue. Having felt like an outsider my whole life I can’t even begin to tell you what ‘belonging’ felt like – there was a sense of superficial anonymity and deep humanity that created an experience that has been with me ever since. Together with the academic reasons for choosing to come back to undertake graduate study here at Sussex, what drew me was this sense of fitting in; an understanding that I would be accepted for who I was and judged on what I brought to the table and that the colour of my skin would not be an issue.

This last week I have had to think in terms of the colour of my skin and I can tell you that it’s not pleasant to do so.

Academic freedom is about the healthy exchange of ideas but it can not be separated from the practices that are legitimated and justified through their promulgation. Therefore any move to protect academic freedom simultaneously protects the practices that are associated with those ideas. As members of a community we have a responsibility for how that community is constructed and develops – we need to move away from idea that if something is academic it is irrelevant – academic debate has consequences and academic freedom entails responsibilities.

Amongst many students, staff and faculty there is a pride in Sussex and a sense of community and identity that exists under the surface without ever being fully reflected upon – and this is what we have the opportunity to do today. Principles alone do not stand for anything; you can have as many guidelines and policies as you want and if the context within which they operate is not one of trust, respect and equality then they are not worth the paper they are written on. This is not just about the article Sampson has written it’s about the response we make to it; it’s about the community we choose to create and the stand we decide to take in making a difference in the world.

Gurminder K. Bhambra and Martin Shaw

debate

Martin's comment in the meeting questioned what he saw as the 'narrowing of academic feedom' in Gurminder's view. Martin pointed out that he interpreted the scope of an academic broadly, including the right to comment on areas outside his own research in any direct way.The email debate began when Gurminder emailed Martin as follows.