SOAS Graduation is an event that, despite its semi-formality, brings together students (or, in the words of the neo-libs; learners), parents, academics, honorary degree awardees, support staff and generally any other friends of SOAS graduates.This year, however, SOAS management has brought shame on itself and on the reputation of the school.
This year saw an unprecedented degree of segregation. So much so that even those affected by the event were so dumbfounded that they could not think clearly as to how to deal with this issue. This year the school operated what has been described by those who experienced it as "Apartheid".
Every year, after the official graduation ceremony, everyone converges onto the main SOAS grass; into and surrounding a marquee to enjoy an afternoon of great SOAS music and company, and (crap Sodexho) food and drink.
This year, unbeknown to the majority of us, the 'event organiser' organised 3 separate areas. In the marquee students, parents and Students' Union staff and officers ate, danced and drank like every other year. There was also small a number of support staff. We didn't even notice that the management and 'VIP' guests were not there.
They were secretly entertained in the Brunei suite. Upon entry management, staff and guests were ushered into one of two clearly signposted areas: Academics and VIP to the left; AV staff and other helpers to the right. These two areas were divided by a full length temporary screen. On the VIP side a full buffet was offered complete with top level champagne and strawberries and cream. The 'rest' were provided with a packed lunch in a paper bag with paper cups. A large poster on the wall informed the 'helpers' that if they should require strawberries and cream, that they were not to enter the VIP side but instead to go to the marquee with the students.
It doesn't take a genius to imagine what happened-there was a very clear and visible divide between the white elite on one side and majority black and minority ethic workers on the other. The 'helpers', who are some of the most low paid workers in th school and who already face discrimination in a number, and all the usual, ways, were absolutely appalled and embarrassed by this segregation.
SOAS is a prestigious institution with a world-class reputation for both it's regional focus and its critical engagement with international relations of power and dominance. Those of us who work or have chosen to study at the school are rightly proud of that reputation. But we also believe that the school should practice what it preaches and not build its reputation on practices that contribute to the problems in society which for the focus of the research of so many of us. We believe that the school should ensure that all those employed on the campus deserve the same dignity and respect afforded to the most senoir of staff.
"Staff - SOAS's staff are its most valuable resource and will play a vital role in achieving the School's vision. SOAS aims to provide all staff with a positive working environment, and proper levels of recognition and reward." (SOAS 2016: A Vision and Strategy for the Centennial, p13)
It is hard to equate the above statement with the treatment suffered by some of the lowest paid workers in the school.
We (the Students' Union) have been approached to start a campaign to ensure this never happens again: we have also been asked to threaten to host our own parallel graduation ceremony next year should this disgusting practice be repeated .
SOAS-the School of Oriental(ist) and African Studies-has also earned its reputation for being a place which has it's own unique community. This community spirit, as lauded by both the Students' Union and then echoed by the director in their speeches at this years ceremony, does not happen magically. It is a product of many years of fighting to break down the barriers between us and them. Through the struggle, through solidarity, through lively and visible campaigns the Students' Union, along with the other unions, have fought to bring about a atmosphere of inclusivity.
For the last 2 years the SU officers contacted all the staff members to remind them that they, as honorary members of the SU, are welcome and encouraged to attend society meetings, events and parties. Collectively, we have co-hosted parties as part of the successful campaign for a Living Wage for the cleaners, we have academics in societies such as the Boxing club, Stop the War and the World Music Choir, we go on a whole host of demonstrations and strike action together. We are regularly approached by members of staff to help fight against injustices that take place at SOAS.
Who on earth thought that organising the graduation ceremony in this degrading manner wouldn't go unnoticed? It has come to our attention that this year the school employed an expensive external consultant 'Events Coordinator'. A job that is usually carried out by permanent members of the registry, who do a sterling job despite the pressure they face from being underfunded and with little support.
We understand that the main person in the registry has left the school, but we don't understand why, even if it was absolutely necessary to bring in outside people, the management did not veto the decision to divide up our wonderful community at a time so important as graduation.
Well, actually, we do understand. And this is the problem...
Part ii soon...Universities in a Neo-Liberal World.
5 comments:
Hello Clare, nice informative blog. However, I think to use the word apartheid with or without the "" in inappropriate. The apartheid period in South Africa was gruesome for all those involved and I sincerely believe that if you were to round up a group of people who had to suffer the apartheid regime and asked them if what happened at the SOAS graduation was apartheid I think the majority might disagree. Sure, we can appreciate that what happened at the graduation was bang out of order but other more appropriate words like discrimination, prejudice etc could be used.
Apartheid is an emotive word that should not be used as lightly as it has been in this article.
However, the word made me read the article... sensationalism has its benefits I suppose.
Folake
folake - you are mistaken to describe the choice of the term 'apartheid' as sensationalism. Clearly, it is a metaphor (and in fact, so far as I can see, it refers to the Israeli 'separation wall' being imposed on the Palestinians, not to the apartheid system in South Africa). Metaphors are not intended to be taken literally, but to convey a set of connotations. Those connotations are clearly drawn out in the post. Think about it: a major educational institution notoriously imbricated with empire and the reproduction of Orientalist knowledge, (it was founded for the specific purpose of training the imperial intelligentsia for their role in Her Majesty's global pillaging enterprise), decides to impose a crude localised form of segregation to manage the darker-hued labourers (or 'helpers' as they call them - hard to find good help these days). That, clearly, is what licenses the use of the apartheid metaphor.
This is pretty shocking. Its appalling that in SOAS of all places this kind of segregation is being practiced. Given the kind of place SOAS is I don't think its at all inappropriate to point out that in practice this amounts to racial segregation. I also think that dreadful episodes like Aparthied are not divided from the rest of history and teach us the difference between right and wrong.
To demand that Aparthied never be used except historically is to deprive ourselves of the lessons of that history. In any case the treatment of migrant workers across the country has created a two tier workforce reminicent of Aparthied. It is a shame that SOAS, far from campaigning against such practices, not only utilizes them to get cheap labour, but extends them to its own social occassions. Disgraceful.
OK Clare, you asked for my comments so here they are.
At the risk of being shot down in flames - there are two distinct issues, the separation of managers from "workers" and the separation of "white" and "black + ethnic minority". Managers having their own little party with expensive champagne is fairly common in companies, although whether the taxpayer should be funding it is another matter (and being a crowd of revolutionaries, you probably don't like it in any case). The separation of "white" and "ethnic minority" is just a manifestation of the state of society, for which you can't really blame SOAS. I was, however, *very* surprised that SOAS senior management could be described as 'white elite', I'd assumed a university with such a diverse student population would have reflected that in its management.
That said, I doubt management said "lets get those ethnic minorities out of our area", they probably said "let's get some nice champagne for ourselves". Greedy, yes. Some sort of intentional conspiracy to disenfranchise people based on their skin colour, no.
Having said that, I do think graduation should be a place where everyone can celebrate the achievements of the graduating students - but to try and turn it into a race discrimination issue is a little severe.
Personally, I hate it when people try to fight battles on the basis of race when the argument is just as compelling without it. The argument is: we should all be able to celebrate graduation together, everyone has a part to play. Imagine how poor the working environment in the library would be without cleaners...
The racial division is a different fight, and one that can't be fixed overnight. You can get rid of the divide for next year's graduation though.
"SOAS management are racists" - which is what you're effectively trying to say - just makes you look crazy :)
Those who don't know soas might be missing the bigger picture. there has just been a big dispute over soas's use of casual labour which effectively meant that the institution was utilizing contracters who paid poverty wages and denied union recognifition to migrant workers. both students and staff were horrified by this situation. soas has just been forced to renegotiate all the contracts with another contracter involving a wage rise, and union recognition for the same group of workers, although demands that they have been employed in-house have not been met (this in an institution were people are busily writing their phd's on the horrors of third world country employment conditions). This minor victory embarressed soas management (which is not, as it happens, particularly diverse) and this, as far as I know, is the first year in which this segregation was practiced. So as in London generally, issues of class and race were intertwined, and the reason for the segregation was that SOAS was a bit embarressed about having been caught out (although the decision was made apparently by...another contracter). You see. Everything really IS connected.
Post a Comment