DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the Academic Board Working Group on Racism and Prejudice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the Academic Board Working Group on Racism and Prejudice ACADEMIC BOARD – 16 December 2020 Paper 2-13 Report of the Academic Board Working Group on Racism and Prejudice Summary of Paper The report of the Working Group established by Academic Board in December 2019 [AB Minute 26, 2019-20] Prior consideration None. Action required of Academic Board AB is invited to adopt the report and to endorse its recommendations. Author / proponent Working Group on Racism and Prejudice A Special Meeting of Academic Board was held on 12 December 2019 in response to a requisition calling for the establishment of a Working Group ‘to advise on racism and prejudice that would investigate the proposed adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism and its consistency with/inconsistency with Academic Freedom at UCL’. Academic Board resolved at that meeting to set up a Working Group ‘to report to the Board so that it may advise Council on the matter of group-specific definitions of racism.’ Elections to the Working Group were accordingly held and the Working Group began its work in February 2020. The report of the Working Group is attached. UCL Academic Board Working Group on Racism and Prejudice December 2020 Table of Contents Page Acknowledgements 2 I. Executive Summary 3 II. Scope and Aims of the Working Group 7 III. Pluralism and Antisemitism at UCL 10 A) The Legacy of Pluralism at UCL 10 B) Antisemitism at UCL 11 IV. Policies, Procedures, and the Legal Context for Combatting Racism and Prejudice at UCL 15 A) Legislative Framework 15 B) UCL Policies and Procedures 17 C) Academic Freedom at UCL 22 D) Questions Arising 24 V. The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism: An Appropriate Remedy? 28 A) The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism 28 B) Implications of UCL’s Adoption of the IHRA Working Definition 31 C) Questions for Academic Board to Consider 34 D) Advocates of the IHRA Working Definition 37 E) Critics of the IHRA Working Definition 43 F) The IHRA Working Definition: Its Effect on Academic Freedom and Free Speech 50 G) The Equality Act and Antisemitism 52 H) Defining Islamophobia 55 I) Alternative Definitions 56 J) The Efficacy of Adopting Definitions 59 VI. Conclusions and Working Group Recommendations 60 Appendices 69 A) Timeline: The Road to IHRA Adoption at UCL 70 B) Case Studies 79 C) Additional Legal Context and UCL Policies 85 D) Academic Board and Council Documents 96 E) UCLU Jewish Society Survey Information 151 F) Letters from UK Government Ministers on the IHRA 152 1 Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following members of the UCL community for joining relevant meetings and contributing to our discussions: Hiba Aouicha, Wendy Appleby (Registrar), Shabeer Ashraf, Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC (Visiting Professor of Law), Samuel Goldstone, Amina Harrath, Oliver Kingsley, Fiona McClement (Director of EDI), Abigail Smith (Senior Policy Advisor, OVPA), Faris Tamimi, and Professor Ijeoma Uchegbu (Provost’s Envoy for Race Equality). For further advice and feedback during the drafting stages, we would also like to thank Professor David Feldman (Director, Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, Birkbeck), Professor Amos Goldberg (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Professor Anthony Julius, Dr. Brian Klug (Oxford), Professor Colm O'Cinneide, Professor Lena Salaymeh (Oxford), Professor Philippe Sands QC, Professor Sacha Stern, and Dr. Yair Wallach (SOAS). The committee alone is responsible for the research and drafting of the report. It has been a privilege to chair this Working Group and to learn from many colleagues at UCL and beyond in preparing this report, which has been jointly researched, authored, and deliberated by all members of the Working Group: Dr Celia Caulcott, Vice-Provost (Enterprise) Professor Tamar Garb, Department of History of Art Professor François Guesnet, Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies Aatikah Malik, Welfare & International Officer, Students’ Union UCL Sandra Ogundele, BME Officer, Students’ Union UCL Dr Farid Panjwani, Centre for the Study of Education in Muslim Contexts Professor Prince Saprai, Faculty of Laws Professor Alan Sokal, Department of Mathematics Professor Judith Suissa, Institute of Education Sean Wallis, English and UCU Branch President A special note of gratitude to Nick McGhee, Senior Assistant Registrar (Casework and Governance) of Student and Registry Services at UCL, for his exceptional work and guidance as secretary of the Working Group. Dr. Seth Anziska, Associate Professor of Jewish-Muslim Relations Chair, Academic Board Working Group on Racism and Prejudice December 2020 2 I. Executive Summary UCL’s Academic Board Working Group on Racism and Prejudice was formally established by a vote of the Academic Board (AB) on 12 December 2019, in the wake of UCL Council’s November 2019 decision to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism. In a series of regular committee meetings, interviews with staff and students, careful examination of a wide range of source material and secondary literature, consultation with outside experts, and extensive drafting between March and November 2020, the Working Group has produced this report for Academic Board’s full consideration. Despite a proud history of UCL’s institutional pluralism and commitment to free thinking, as well as extensive institutional measures in place to combat discrimination and harassment, there is disturbing evidence that incidents of antisemitism have persisted in our university. The existence of discrimination within an institution is severely demoralizing for those who experience it, and adversely affects the entire community. How seriously we are committed to tackling prejudicial behaviour and educating ourselves about the dangers of discrimination remains the mark of our ability to thrive as a diverse and robust community of learners, researchers, teachers and administrators. Were a student or staff member to experience antisemitic harassment or discrimination and not believe their experience will be taken seriously, it would be a systematic failure of our duty of care and of our foundational egalitarian values as a university. Our report examines the extensive policies and procedures at UCL that are in place to combat racism and prejudice, as well as the UK legal context that underpins and enforces these policies. We found a wide range of mechanisms that offer legal protection against antisemitism and other forms of racism and prejudice within our institution. A central issue, we concluded, was less with the policies than with their implementation. The gap between policies and procedural enforcement is a result of (a) insufficient reporting, possibly due to a belief that the existing mechanisms are either too confusing or not taken seriously; and (b) a lack of awareness about what antisemitism is and why it is a problem. On the former, we seek to clarify and elucidate the policies and legal protections already in place, as well as recommend ways to improve understanding of procedures for complaints about antisemitic harassment. As for the educational and awareness aspect (a problem that extends far beyond UCL and is characteristic of society as a whole), we recommend educational measures that recognize antisemitism as a complex societal phenomenon and clarify how it might manifest itself in the UCL community. We also emphasize the need for greater clarity in distinguishing between anti-Jewish prejudice and political debate over Israel and Palestine, examining pedagogical tools for clarifying these distinctions in a university. One such initiative, across the world, to delineate how antisemitism functions has been the adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. Many governments, sporting clubs, associations and local councils have adopted this particular definition in recent months. Here in the UK, successive government ministers have requested university chancellors adopt the working definition, and most recently, the Secretary of State for Education has advised all 3 universities who have not yet adopted it to do so by the end of 2020. For its advocates, adoption of this working definition would make it easier to understand what antisemitism is, how it functions, and how to report it, and thereby, identify those in breach for disciplinary sanctions. In this context, as our detailed timeline of decision-making within UCL indicates, the UCLU Jewish Society, members of SMT, and supportive staff and students as well as advocates of the IHRA within AB encouraged Council’s move to adopt the working definition as official UCL policy in 2019. This was not, however, a decision endorsed or advised by AB as a whole, and substantive resistance was demonstrated in a letter signed by over forty academics as well as robust debate at AB meetings. Nor was it negotiated with the recognized trade union for academic staff, Universities and Colleges Union (UCU), despite it potentially being used in disciplinary cases. The bulk of our report examines the efficacy of the IHRA working definition, both in terms of its educational value and as a proscriptive tool for identifying antisemitism at universities and ensuring effective institutional reporting and enforcement. We have studied this document with great care and taken advice from a range of experts as to its efficacy and adoptability as well as acquainted ourselves with the lengthy literature it has generated. In the process we have identified a major concern in the conflation of the adoption of a special definition with the actual institutional combatting of antisemitism
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From the Crises of W Hiteness to Western Supremacism
    Australian Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association Journal, Vol. 1, 2005 FROM THE CRISES OF W HITENESS TO WESTERN SUPREMACISM ALASTAIR BONNETT Introduction figure in any of the British parties who confessed to a faith in the white man‘s This article explores the rise of the West in mission to rule‘ (1953: 201). In the short- relation to the decline of whiteness. It does term at least, the crisis of whiteness had so by comparing two Victorian intellectuals different consequences in Australia, which who helped articulate this transition, the had witnessed the production of a political English Social Darwinist Benjamin Kidd class highly conscious of the spectre of (1858œ1916) and the English-born ”Asianisation‘. The policies and politics of Australian politician and social reformer ”White Australia‘ were the principle product Charles Pearson (1830œ1894). of this sensibility. However, by the time ”White Australia‘ finally came to an end (it The decline of whiteness may seem a is conventional to cite the deracialisation of surprising theme. Whiteness is, after all, immigration law in 1973 and 1978 as an still very much with us. Indeed, the close end point), the idea of ”the West‘, with its relationship between the globalisation of corollary of westernisation, had already neo-liberalism and the image of the ideal been in circulation for over a century. consumer appears to be producing a new Although John Howard can be seen to have symbolic economy of exchange with re-asserted elements of a white Australia whiteness at or near its centre (Bonnett immigration policy, by the close of the last 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 the Right-Wing Media Enablers of Anti-Islam Propaganda
    Chapter 4 The right-wing media enablers of anti-Islam propaganda Spreading anti-Muslim hate in America depends on a well-developed right-wing media echo chamber to amplify a few marginal voices. The think tank misinforma- tion experts and grassroots and religious-right organizations profiled in this report boast a symbiotic relationship with a loosely aligned, ideologically-akin group of right-wing blogs, magazines, radio stations, newspapers, and television news shows to spread their anti-Islam messages and myths. The media outlets, in turn, give members of this network the exposure needed to amplify their message, reach larger audiences, drive fundraising numbers, and grow their membership base. Some well-established conservative media outlets are a key part of this echo cham- ber, mixing coverage of alarmist threats posed by the mere existence of Muslims in America with other news stories. Chief among the media partners are the Fox News empire,1 the influential conservative magazine National Review and its website,2 a host of right-wing radio hosts, The Washington Times newspaper and website,3 and the Christian Broadcasting Network and website.4 They tout Frank Gaffney, David Yerushalmi, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Steven Emerson, and others as experts, and invite supposedly moderate Muslim and Arabs to endorse bigoted views. In so doing, these media organizations amplify harm- ful, anti-Muslim views to wide audiences. (See box on page 86) In this chapter we profile some of the right-wing media enablers, beginning with the websites, then hate radio, then the television outlets. The websites A network of right-wing websites and blogs are frequently the primary movers of anti-Muslim messages and myths.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism Cosmopolitan Reflections
    Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism Cosmopolitan Reflections David Hirsh Department of Sociology, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, London SE14 6NW, UK The Working Papers Series is intended to initiate discussion, debate and discourse on a wide variety of issues as it pertains to the analysis of antisemitism, and to further the study of this subject matter. Please feel free to submit papers to the ISGAP working paper series. Contact the ISGAP Coordinator or the Editor of the Working Paper Series, Charles Asher Small. Working Paper Hirsh 2007 ISSN: 1940-610X © Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy ISGAP 165 East 56th Street, Second floor New York, NY 10022 United States Office Telephone: 212-230-1840 www.isgap.org ABSTRACT This paper aims to disentangle the difficult relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. On one side, antisemitism appears as a pressing contemporary problem, intimately connected to an intensification of hostility to Israel. Opposing accounts downplay the fact of antisemitism and tend to treat the charge as an instrumental attempt to de-legitimize criticism of Israel. I address the central relationship both conceptually and through a number of empirical case studies which lie in the disputed territory between criticism and demonization. The paper focuses on current debates in the British public sphere and in particular on the campaign to boycott Israeli academia. Sociologically the paper seeks to develop a cosmopolitan framework to confront the methodological nationalism of both Zionism and anti-Zionism. It does not assume that exaggerated hostility to Israel is caused by underlying antisemitism but it explores the possibility that antisemitism may be an effect even of some antiracist forms of anti- Zionism.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust
    Glasses of those murdered at Auschwitz Birkenau Nazi German concentration and death camp (1941-1945). © Paweł Sawicki, Auschwitz Memorial 2021 INTERNATIONAL DAY OF COMMEMORATION IN MEMORY OF THE VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST Programme WEDNESDAY, 27 JANUARY 2021 11:00 A.M.–1:00 P.M. EST 17:00–19:00 CET COMMEMORATION CEREMONY Ms. Melissa FLEMING Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications MASTER OF CEREMONIES Mr. António GUTERRES United Nations Secretary-General H.E. Mr. Volkan BOZKIR President of the 75th session of the United Nations General Assembly Ms. Audrey AZOULAY Director-General of UNESCO Ms. Sarah NEMTANU and Ms. Deborah NEMTANU Violinists | “Sorrow” by Béla Bartók (1945-1981), performed from the crypt of the Mémorial de la Shoah, Paris. H.E. Ms. Angela MERKEL Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany KEYNOTE SPEAKER Hon. Irwin COTLER Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, Canada H.E. Mr. Gilad MENASHE ERDAN Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations H.E. Mr. Richard M. MILLS, Jr. Acting Representative of the United States to the United Nations Recitation of Memorial Prayers Cantor JULIA CADRAIN, Central Synagogue in New York El Male Rachamim and Kaddish Dr. Irene BUTTER and Ms. Shireen NASSAR Holocaust Survivor and Granddaughter in conversation with Ms. Clarissa WARD CNN’s Chief International Correspondent 2 Respondents to the question, “Why do you feel that learning about the Holocaust is important, and why should future generations know about it?” Mr. Piotr CYWINSKI, Poland Mr. Mark MASEKO, Zambia Professor Debórah DWORK, United States Professor Salah AL JABERY, Iraq Professor Yehuda BAUER, Israel Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • "Model Minority" Myth Shuzi Meng | Soobin Im | Stephanie Campbell, MS YWCA Racial Justice Summit | Madison, WI 15 October 2019
    Minoritized Yet Excluded: Dismantling the "Model Minority" Myth Shuzi Meng | Soobin Im | Stephanie Campbell, MS YWCA Racial Justice Summit | Madison, WI 15 October 2019 AGENDA ● Introductions ● Learning objectives ● What sparked our interest ● Asian Americans, the hyphenated Americans and perpetual foreigners in the U.S. ● Hidden in the Black/White racial binary ● The Model Minority myth: What’s wrong with the positive stereotype? ● Activity: The myth crusher ● Implications for mental health and education ● Activity: Application to your own occupational/interpersonal settings ● Questions 3 HELLO! ● name ● racial/ethnic identity ● preferred pronouns ● share about: ○ an experience in which you were over- or underestimated ○ your favorite Asian dish or food 4 LEARNING OBJECTIVES ◈ Understand history of Asian Americans in the U.S. and the experiences of discrimination and implicit racial biases against Asian Americans. ◈ Recognize and identify how “positive stereotypes” can hurt not only Asian American communities, but all racial/ethnic groups. ◈ Increase confidence in interacting with and advocating for individuals who fall victim to such biases. 5 What Sparked Our Interest “Say My Name” 6 7 8 Xenophobia? Or beyond? What are the experiences of Asian Americans with U.S. nationality? 9 10 11 DISCUSSION In your table groups… What are your reactions to these videos? Do these resonate with your ideas of Asian Americans? If yes, why? If no, why not? 12 Asian Americans the hyphenated Americans and perpetual foreigners in the U.S. Where are you from? Where were you born? What are you? Your English is very good. 13 “One indication that Asian Americans continue to be viewed as foreigners (i.e., not Americans) is that attitudes toward Asian Americans are highly influenced by international relations between the United States and Asian countries (Lowe, 1996; Nakayama, 1994; Wu, 2002).” - Lee, 2005, p.5 14 HISTORY OF ASIAN AMERICANS IN THE U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Against Racism from White Subject Positions: White Anti-Racism, New Abolitionism & Intersectional Anti-White Irish Diasporic Nationalism
    Working Against Racism from White Subject Positions: White Anti-Racism, New Abolitionism & Intersectional Anti-White Irish Diasporic Nationalism By Matthew W. Horton A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education and the Designated Emphasis in Critical Theory in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Dr. Na’ilah Nasir, Chair Dr. Daniel Perlstein Dr. Keith Feldman Summer 2019 Working Against Racism from White Subject Positions Matthew W. Horton 2019 ABSTRACT Working Against Racism from White Subject Positions: White Anti-Racism, New Abolitionism & Intersectional Anti-White Irish Diasporic Nationalism by Matthew W. Horton Doctor of Philosophy in Education and the Designated Emphasis in Critical Theory University of California, Berkeley Professor Na’ilah Nasir, Chair This dissertation is an intervention into Critical Whiteness Studies, an ‘additional movement’ to Ethnic Studies and Critical Race Theory. It systematically analyzes key contradictions in working against racism from a white subject positions under post-Civil Rights Movement liberal color-blind white hegemony and "Black Power" counter-hegemony through a critical assessment of two major competing projects in theory and practice: white anti-racism [Part 1] and New Abolitionism [Part 2]. I argue that while white anti-racism is eminently practical, its efforts to hegemonically rearticulate white are overly optimistic, tend toward renaturalizing whiteness, and are problematically dependent on collaboration with people of color. I further argue that while New Abolitionism has popularized and advanced an alternative approach to whiteness which understands whiteness as ‘nothing but oppressive and false’ and seeks to ‘abolish the white race’, its ultimately class-centered conceptualization of race and idealization of militant nonconformity has failed to realize effective practice.
    [Show full text]
  • HOW the OTHER HALF VOTES HOW the OTHER Big Brother Viewers and the 2005 General Election HALF VOTES
    HOW THE OTHER HALF VOTES HOW THE OTHER Big Brother Viewers and the 2005 General Election HALF VOTES Stephen Coleman Big Brother Viewers and the 2005 General Election Why is it that the experience of taking part in Big Brother is so much more compelling for some people than the routines and rituals of electoral politics? How the Other Half Votes raises radical questions about the condition of contemporary democracy, the Stephen Coleman borders between the political and the popular and the case for thinking creatively about what it means to be politically engaged. May 2006 Price £10 Hansard Society ISBN 0 900432 18 7 www.hansardsociety.org.uk The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and the Hansard Society, as an independent non-party organisation, is neither for nor against. The Society is, however, happy to publish these views and to invite analysis and discussion of them. HOW THE OTHER HALF VOTES Big Brother Viewers and the 2005 General Election Stephen Coleman Stephen Coleman is Professor of Political © Hansard Society 2006 Communication at Leeds University All rights reserved. No part of this publication and also senior research associate may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or with the Hansard Society transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the Hansard Society. Published by The Hansard Society is an independent, Hansard Society non-partisan educational charity, which exists 40-43 Chancery Lane to promote effective parliamentary democracy. London WC2A 1JA For further information
    [Show full text]
  • Corrigé Corrected
    Corrigé Corrected CR 2018/20 International Court Cour internationale of Justice de Justice THE HAGUE LA HAYE YEAR 2018 Public sitting held on Monday 3 September 2018, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations) ____________________ VERBATIM RECORD ____________________ ANNÉE 2018 Audience publique tenue le lundi 3 septembre 2018, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Yusuf, président, sur les Effets juridiques de la séparation de l’archipel des Chagos de Maurice en 1965 (Demande d’avis consultatif soumise par l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies) ________________ COMPTE RENDU ________________ - 2 - Present: President Yusuf Vice-President Xue Judges Tomka Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade Donoghue Gaja Sebutinde Bhandari Robinson Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa Registrar Couvreur - 3 - Présents : M. Yusuf, président Mme Xue, vice-présidente MM. Tomka Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade Mme Donoghue M. Gaja Mme Sebutinde MM. Bhandari Robinson Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa, juges M. Couvreur, greffier - 4 - The Republic of Mauritius is represented by: H.E. Sir Anerood Jugnauth, G.C.S.K., K.C.M.G., Q.C., Minister Mentor, Minister of Defence, Minister for Rodrigues of the Republic of Mauritius, as Head of Delegation (from 3 to 5 September 2018); Mr. Nayen Koomar Ballah, G.O.S.K., Secretary to Cabinet and Head of the Civil Service, Mr. Dheerendra Kumar Dabee, G.O.S.K., S.C., Solicitor General, H.E. Mr. Jagdish Dharamchand Koonjul, G.O.S.K., Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Mauritius to the United Nations in New York, Ms Shiu Ching Young Kim Fat, Minister Counsellor, Prime Minister’s Office, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Holocaust Awareness Week
    HOLOCAUST AWARENESS WEEK JANUARY 23-26, 2017 The College of Social Sciences and Humanities, the Holocaust Awareness Committee, and the Northeastern Humanities Center invite you to a series of commemorative and educational events that reflect on the Holocaust's legacy in the 21st century. Personal Confrontations With the Past northeastern.edu/hac ABOUT HOLOCAUST AWARENESS WEEK The Holocaust Awareness Committee at Northeastern University publicly remembers the Holocaust each year, not only as historical fact and a memorial to its millions of victims, but also as a warning that the horrors of the past must never be repeated. The programs that we present bear witness to the Holocaust's events and explore issues arising out of the war of extermination against Jews and other groups targeted by the Nazis. Speakers ask how lessons learned from the Holocaust can be applied to our own historical moment. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Northeastern Holocaust Commemoration The Portraitist: Wilhelm Brasse and Photography Ethics in Auschwitz Alison Campbell The Search for Meaning: Survivors' Children and Their Choice of a Life in the Law Rose Zoltek-Jick Monday, January 23 4:30 - 6 p.m. Cabral Center 40 Leon Street Reception to follow. Philip N. Backstrom, Jr. Survivor Lecture Series A Talk with Holocaust Survivor Anna Ornstein Tuesday, January 24 12:30 - 2 p.m. Raytheon Amphitheater 120 Forsyth Street Lunch will be served. Bill Giessen Film Screening What Our Fathers Did: A Nazi Legacy Followed by Q&A with Philippe Sands, Screenwriter Moderated by Professor Natalie Bormann Wednesday, January 25 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Raytheon Amphitheater 120 Forsyth Street Hors d'oeuvres will be served during the film.
    [Show full text]
  • Advocating for Better Protection for Conflict-Affected Populations: Legal Action Against UK Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia for Use I
    HPG briefing note Advocating for better protection for conflict-affected populations Legal action against UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia for use in the Yemen conflict Gemma Davies July 2021 Lessons learned Partnerships and collaboration within and outside the humanitarian sector are critical in strengthening advocacy for better protection of civilians affected by conflict, through leveraging respective expertise and sharing risk. Where litigation is part of a broader advocacy campaign there should be coherence in legal and advocacy strategies, with trade-offs identified at the outset. A theory of change with scenario mapping would support this. Strategic litigation can be an effective advocacy tool for humanitarian actors. Renowned legal expertise, a well-evidenced and well-resourced strategy and a persuasive case are central to maximising the chances of success. Risks can be mitigated and shared through collective advocacy once the potential risks have been jointly assessed. About the author Gemma Davies is a Senior Research Fellow with the Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) at ODI Readers are encouraged to reproduce material for their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. ODI requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. For online use, we ask readers to link to the original resource on the ODI website. The views presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of ODI or our partners. This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. How to cite: Davies, G. (2020) ‘Advocating for better protection for conflict-affected populations: UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia for use in the Yemen conflict’.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Race and Privilege
    Exploring Race and Privilege Exploring Race and Privilege presents materials on culturally responsive supervision from the second of a three‐part series designed for supervisors in teacher education. This series was developed in partnership with Dr. Tanisha Brandon‐ Felder, a consultant in professional development on equity pedagogy. This document contains handouts, planning tools, readings, and other materials to provide field supervisors with a scaffolded experience to improve their ability for culturally responsive supervision. The following materials build on the trust and community developed through the first set of activities The Power of Identity. Exploration of race and concepts such as white privilege will necessitate shared understanding of language and norms for conversation. 1. Understanding the Language of Race and Diversity 2. Ground Rules for Conversation 3. Color Line Instructions 4. Color Line Handout 5. White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh Understanding the Language of Race and Diversity Terms we all need to know: PREJUDICE Pre‐judgment, bias DISCRIMINATION Prejudice + action OPPRESSION Discrimination + systemic power. (Systemic advantage based on a particular social identity.) Racism = oppression based race‐ the socially constructed meaning attached to a variety of physical attributes including but not limited to skin and eye color, hair texture, and bone structure of people in the US and elsewhere. racism‐ the conscious or unconscious, intentional or unintentional, enactment of racial power, grounded in racial prejudice, by an individual or group against another individual or group perceived to have lower racial status. Types of racism: Internalized Racism Lies within individuals. Refers to private beliefs and biases about race and racism.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT CHAMBERS, CHERYL. Institutional
    ABSTRACT CHAMBERS, CHERYL. Institutional Racism: Is Law Used as a Tool to Perpetuate Racial Inequality? (Under the direction of Richard Della Fave.) Law is a mechanism we use to instigate social change and bring about equality. It is also the tool that has been used to institutionalize, legitimize and perpetuate inequality. In the past beliefs of racial inferiority and savagery may have resulted in legislation designed to perpetuate a group’s subordinate status. Laws and public policy are created within an historical and political context. Is there a connection between social climate and the advent of federal drug legislation? In this research, conflict and racial inequality perspectives are applied to the role of the economy and politics to foster understanding of opium laws in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and the contexts from which they emerged. It is hypothesized that an historical analysis of the Congressional discussions surrounding these drug laws will illustrate that competition and threat, economic and/or political, were present prior to the enactment of the laws. Analyses indicate that while economic and to a limited extent political competition between Chinese immigrants and white Americans affected the passage of the opium laws, economic and political competition had little effect on the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act or the Anti-Drug Abuse Act. While vilification of and anti-minority sentiment during the opium legislation was clear and recognizable, it was almost non-existent during the marijuana legislation, and present in only nuances in the 1980’s.
    [Show full text]