'Sheffield students paid to tackle racist language on campus'

[Nearly Sane]

Hmmmm....


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/education-51098539?__twitter_impression=true

[Robbie]

Hmmm indeed. I agree with people being taught how to handle racist remarks and conversations without getting heated but being paid for it?

[Nearly Sane]

Not just the paying but it also seems to shut down discussion.

[Robbie]

I suppose depends on how it's done but I don't think I'd be partiuclarly convinced by someone whom I knew was paid to sell a line.

[Nearly Sane]

It's just the whole idea of 'policing microaggressions'

[Robbie]

Yes, one wonders where it will all end.

[ProfessorDavey]

I doubt they are being paid to 'police' anything.

I suspect their job will be to involved in workshops and training that other students can attend to help them learn about the issue of microagressions and avoid them. hence:

'They will be trained to "lead healthy conversations" about preventing racism on campus and in student accommodation.'

[Nearly Sane]

I doubt they are being paid to 'police' anything.

I suspect their job will be to involved in workshops and training that other students can attend to help them learn about the issue of microagressions and avoid them. hence:

'They will be trained to "lead healthy conversations" about preventing racism on campus and in student accommodation.'

Isn't that a way of 'policing'?

[ProfessorDavey]

Isn't that a way of 'policing'?

No

[Nearly Sane]

No

People are being paid to tell other people that they are speaking 'incorrectly' - in what way is that not policing?

[Outrider]

Not just the paying but it also seems to shut down discussion.

How does someone starting a conversation - a discussion - about the use of language constitute shutting down discussion?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

How does someone starting a conversation - a discussion - about the use of language constitute shutting down discussion?

O.

How is pointing out that something is effectively proscribed speech starting a discussion?

[Outrider]

How is pointing out that something is effectively proscribed speech starting a discussion?

If that's what they were doing it would be a problem, perhaps, but they have no capacity to proscribe speech - they are pointing out the way in which some phrases and articulations have an unintended connotation.  They are reliant on people realising and recognising that, and choosing not to use those phrases or concepts.

That's not 'proscribing speech' that's 'raising awareness'. If you want to continue irritating people then you can, but you need to appreciate that there are social consequences to that, and accept that's part of the choice that you are making.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

People are being paid to tell other people that they are speaking 'incorrectly' - in what way is that not policing?

No they aren't.

[Nearly Sane]

No they aren't.

In what way are they not?

[ProfessorDavey]

If that's what they were doing it would be a problem, perhaps, but they have no capacity to proscribe speech - they are pointing out the way in which some phrases and articulations have an unintended connotation.  They are reliant on people realising and recognising that, and choosing not to use those phrases or concepts.

That's not 'proscribing speech' that's 'raising awareness'. If you want to continue irritating people then you can, but you need to appreciate that there are social consequences to that, and accept that's part of the choice that you are making.

O.

Exactly - this is about raising awareness within a context that most people don't want to cause offence to others, but may inadvertently do so without a little better understanding.

University campuses are a bit of a minefield - firstly because most students are fairly young and inexperienced but also crucially because the population on campuses is hugely diverse and most students wont have encountered such diversity in their lives up to that point. To help students to understand that a comment that they may make meaning no offence might be construed otherwise by someone from a very different culture and background to themselves is valuable and I'm sure there are plenty of students who will value a little support and help in this respect, as (as indicated previously) I suspect most students aren't in the business of causing offence to others and would be horrified if they realised they'd done so without realising or meaning to, and that a little information, support and dialogue on campus could help them avoid that scenario.

[ProfessorDavey]

In what way are they not?

Because they are being paid to lead discussion groups in which students from different backgrounds come together to discuss the use of language and where individuals might find some language offensive and to allow greater understanding of why that might be.

[Enki]

After reading the BBC link, I would just suggest the following:

If it is about specialist courses which students are invited to attend to learn more about racism and led by said paid students then basically I have nothing against it.  The how and by whom the paid subjects are coached should be made transparent however.

If, on the other hand, these paid students are coached to intervene in other people's personal conversations then I have everything against it, not least the strong possibility that they might make things worse or even totally misinterpret a person's intent.
In light of this, I consider some of the quoted examples to be highly suspect.

E.g. "Stop making everything a race issue" which could possibly be said because the person who said it does actually consider that the other person is doing just that, and is offended by it.

or:

"I don't want to hear about your holiday to South Africa. It's nowhere near where I'm from" which might be said by someone who is sick of hearing about someone endlessly going on about their holiday, and from 'where they are from' might be referring to their poor background and that there is no way they could afford such a holiday.

[ProfessorDavey]

After reading the BBC link, I would just suggest the following:

If it is about specialist courses which students are invited to attend to learn more about racism and led by said paid students then basically I have nothing against it.  The how and by whom the paid subjects are coached should be made transparent however.

That seems to be entirely what it is about - always better to go to the original source:

https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/race-equality-champions-help-students-challenge-microaggressions-1.878374

If, on the other hand, these paid students are coached to intervene in other people's personal conversations then I have everything against it ...

There is no suggestion of that.

[ProfessorDavey]

In light of this, I consider some of the quoted examples to be highly suspect.

E.g. "Stop making everything a race issue" which could possibly be said because the person who said it does actually consider that the other person is doing just that, and is offended by it.

or:

"I don't want to hear about your holiday to South Africa. It's nowhere near where I'm from" which might be said by someone who is sick of hearing about someone endlessly going on about their holiday, and from 'where they are from' might be referring to their poor background and that there is no way they could afford such a holiday.

But I think all that is intended is for people to better understand how their comments might be construed - I someone want to be offensive, then they will be, but this is to help others who don't want to be offensive to avoid inadvertently causing offence.

So on your first example that could cut both ways - firstly toward individuals making low level racist comments without realising or meaning to, but also in reverse towards individuals that inadvertently consider things to have a racist element when they don't.

On the holiday one - all it might mean is someone simply says 'I'm sick of hearing about your holiday yet again, I'm bored of it and you need to realise that I've never had the opportunity to go on a holiday like that'

I agree that I'm not sure these are the best examples - the 'where are you really from' - when that person may have been born and grown up in East London (as an example) is a better one, and again easily avoided. Likewise being compared with someone, anyone merely because you are both black, or both asian is pretty offensive and easily avoided.

[Nearly Sane]

That seems to be entirely what it is about - always better to go to the original source:

https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/race-equality-champions-help-students-challenge-microaggressions-1.878374
There is no suggestion of that.

Thanks for the link - that makes it clearer - as enki says, the guidance needs to be transparent as the cases in the BBC report are not always clear - as you have covered in your follow up post. I wonder where the examples were taken from.

[ProfessorDavey]

Thanks for the link - that makes it clearer - as enki says, the guidance needs to be transparent as the cases in the BBC report are not always clear - as you have covered in your follow up post. I wonder where the examples were taken from.

I think the Univ Sheffield link makes it clear how the programme has been developed:

'Content for the discussions has been developed by a wide range of students and academic experts at the University, and is designed to encourage students to have healthy, open discussions, express their opinions and think critically about issues such as the Windrush scandal, perceptions of racism in British society and microaggressions.'

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

No idea where the examples used in the BBC article have come from, they certainly on the Univ Sheffield. However, regardless I'd image examples would be used as prompts for dialogue, rather than 'this is right, this is wrong'. Examples would presumably be used to allow the participants to gain greater understanding of the issues, be able better to empathise with the view-point of others and ultimately to develop skills and tools that mean they avoid inadvertently making comments that others find offensive. Not only is this a good skill set-for campus, but also for life including the workplace. How many people have walked into trouble inadvertently when it could easily have been avoided?

[Enki]

But I think all that is intended is for people to better understand how their comments might be construed - I someone want to be offensive, then they will be, but this is to help others who don't want to be offensive to avoid inadvertently causing offence.

So on your first example that could cut both ways - firstly toward individuals making low level racist comments without realising or meaning to, but also in reverse towards individuals that inadvertently consider things to have a racist element when they don't.

On the holiday one - all it might mean is someone simply says 'I'm sick of hearing about your holiday yet again, I'm bored of it and you need to realise that I've never had the opportunity to go on a holiday like that'

I agree that I'm not sure these are the best examples - the 'where are you really from' - when that person may have been born and grown up in East London (as an example) is a better one, and again easily avoided. Likewise being compared with someone, anyone merely because you are both black, or both asian is pretty offensive and easily avoided.

On the subject of your first reply(M 18)

In which case I have no problem.

On the subject of your second reply,

I happily support your reference to the first example. That is precisely what I mean. It is possible for it to be interpreted in more than one way. Ditto for the other example I gave. I think that these are not really very good examples at all. Perhaps, alongside the laudable aim of of understanding how one's words and phrases may be misconstrued, time should be given to understanding how the listener may avoid the action of misinterpreting words and phrases.


In any case I would suggest that those in charge of coaching these student champions need to examine their own credentials and biases first perhaps.

[ProfessorDavey]

I happily support your reference to the first example. That is precisely what I mean. It is possible for it to be interpreted in more than one way. Ditto for the other example I gave. I think that these are not really very good examples at all. Perhaps, alongside the laudable aim of of understanding how one's words and phrases may be misconstrued, time should be given to understanding how the listener may avoid the action of misinterpreting words and phrases.

But isn't the whole point of the programme to allow people to better understand interpretations that others may reasonably take on the basis of their backgound so as to avoid inadvertently causing offence, which I would suggest most students would wish to do.

In any case I would suggest that those in charge of coaching these student champions need to examine their own credentials and biases first perhaps.

Working in a university myself I have little doubt that their credentials in this area will be top notch.

[Enki]

But isn't the whole point of the programme to allow people to better understand interpretations that others may reasonably take on the basis of their backgound so as to avoid inadvertently causing offence, which I would suggest most students would wish to do.
Working in a university myself I have little doubt that their credentials in this area will be top notch.

I take your points quite happily, and as long as the sessions are completely voluntary.I think it is a good idea, although I personally would not limit this to challenging offensive comments directed only at black, Asian and minority ethnic people.

And, as I have already stated, perhaps the programme should also include ways to avoid misinterpretations (which may be a result of personal bias on behalf of the recipient, for instance) because such interpretations may well be completely unjustified.