I am director of a grassroots campaign, Don’t Divide Us. The three principles that guide our work are: Britain today is not a systematically racist country. Encouraging people to see themselves primarily in terms of ethnic identity, is, in effect, to re-racialise British culture and make social solidarity well-nigh impossible. When attempting to address existing inequalities, starting from a colour-blind position is likely to be more productive and less divisive.
One might think there is nothing particularly controversial about these commonly held beliefs. However, seven individuals complained to the organisers of an educational conference, Rethinking Education, that they would feel “unsafe” if the conference was addressed by a speaker from Don’t Divide Us. The organisers opted to disinvite, ie cancel, me, although, under pressure, they subsequently apologised for having done so.
Ensuring that every participant feels safe may be the first priority of a therapist, but it is not the primary concern of democratic debate
I had been invited to speak on a panel entitled What is Indoctrination in Education and How Can Schools Avoid It? The conference organiser informed me that the seven complainants had convinced him that their distress was real. Maybe it was — I can’t say as I never got to meet them. But why should the claim of emotional distress by seven people out of a possible 500 attendees trump the educational experience and expertise I would have brought to that session? The disinvitation was a personal slight to my professional status.
But even more important than any personal consequences, is the fact that in disinviting me, the organisers tacitly agreed that widely held, legitimate beliefs in colour-blind approaches to race, which are critical of Critical Race theory, are unsuitable for public expression, and likely to make others feel “unsafe”.
Ensuring that every participant feels safe may be the first priority of a therapist, but it is not the primary concern of democratic debate. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the organisers to make sure that who speaks and what can be said are not policed by a minority, however (supposedly) vulnerable.
As it turned out, the chair of the session and other speakers chose to pull out of the conference rather than go ahead without me. We need more of this kind of practical solidarity because freedom and democracy are at stake.
