Surviving discrimination and confronting it

2021

This blog post does not provide a complete overview of the atmosphere at university or in academia, where I think that fairness is far more common than discrimination. Let's keep up the good work and be mindful of the rest.

There is discrimination at European universities and in the corresponding academia. Minorities are too often oppressed and abused through the use of casual remarks, concerted attacks, unequal respect towards different groups, unfair hiring decisions and other negligent behaviours. Professional and personal negligence is the reason why this discrimination is tolerated and condoned by staff of higher authority. Cases of discrimination are not normally shared by the universities, but they are sometimes registered on the websites of student unions, other student forums, or in the press. Discrimination must not be tolerated either at university or in academia. I hope this blog post provides some useful tips for dealing with discrimination from university students and staff alike.

Homo homini lupus

Xenophobia is one of the types of discrimination that sometimes crop up in halls of residence, departments, panels, committees, offices. Xenophobia exists where you are now, as it does where you come from. It is intrinsic to human societies (see Hinton, 2017). In society at large, who doesn't know the way in which different nationalities are ranked in a certain place? The specifics of these hierarchies vary across regions and individuals (thank goodness); and yet, xenophobia always tends to be underlain by an unfair, puny spirit.

Hierarchies among nationalities

In society at large, the locals tend to be first. Some locals sometimes utilise official devices and everyday tricks to ensure that immigrants are second to them. We must all remember that more people should not mean more rights. Each person is a person.

The first rank of immigrants is formed of one or two nationalities, smiled at by the fortune of historical or cultural ties. The second rank of immigrants is that of merely-tolerated nationalities. The third rank is formed of immigrants who are despised due to historical, political, cultural factors.

Sadly and dangerously enough, in competitive or onerous circumstances (when is that not the case, though!), homo homini lupus est (people are wolves unto people). Then, discrimination breaks loose (Abbink, & Harris, 2019; Meiring et al., 2014; Mendes & Koslov, 2013).

Policies

Policy statements are increasingly popular and they give reasons for hope. For instance, the employment webpage of Duke University reads (on 21st July 2021; https://hr.duke.edu/policies/diversity/eeo):

Duke University prohibits discrimination and harassment, and provides equal employment opportunity without regard to an individual's age, color, disability, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or veteran status.

Such statements, if indeed observed by the employees, constitute historical—why, historic!—changes. They should be celebrated, applauded—even if they simply adhere to fundamental, human rights.

Dealing with discrimination

Discrimination takes many forms. Accordingly, surviving and confronting it requires various approaches. Stoicism, bravery, protection and ingenuity are all valuable against the xenophobia that lurks, and occasionally bites, in halls of residence, informal meetings, committees, offices, and other settings at universities across Europe. Inspiration for such approaches can be found in many places—even in popular literature. For instance, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird contains a passage in which a lawyer is mobbed by nostalgic townspeople who do not want a Black citizen to be treated as a human. The strategies for the defence from the lynch mob span from the lawyer's stoicism to his son's adolescent bravery, and from the invisible protection offered by a witness to the disarming ingenuity of the lawyer's eight-year-old daughter, who spots one of her neighbours in the mob.

Collection and presentation of evidence

Ironically, complaint cases are sometimes initiated by those who have exerted discrimination. If you receive a complaint and you feel you have been discriminated against, whether before or through the said complaint, it is important to note this in your response.

The discrimination can be well described by producing an extensive document that recounts every relevant episode, with the applicable evidence being attached. Don't fret about reading time: the larger the document, the better.

Name it. Discrimination has precise names—for instance, xenophobia—, which must be used where relevant and necessary. People know the meaning: perpetrators are likely know it and so will the authorities or mediators who are in charge of resolving the case. Whether these people like the word to be used or not is their own problem, not yours. Nonetheless, more general, and often more objective, hypernyms are also available, such as ‘discrimination’ and ‘unfairness’.

Case study

This year, I was bullied by some of my flatmates. This bullying was finally underscored when they submitted false accusations about me to the Graduate College Accommodation Office at Lancaster University. The latter office embraced and acted upon these accusations. As a result, a flat meeting was suggested by the Deanery. The Deanery would not initially allow me to receive information in writing and to respond likewise. On the contrary, they required a live meeting. As I repeatedly countered, I thought that a written procedure would cause less stress, yield less bias, and allow a more accurate registration of every input for future reference.

It is due to three reasons that I would prefer working on the basis of a brief written report, to which I could also respond in writing. These reasons are:

I think that the written mode helps remain more impartial than the oral mode.

I think a written discussion would help in keeping a clear, written record of every part of the report.

I think a written discussion causes less stress than an oral one.

I am hopeful that, having presented my preference for responding in writing to a written report, you may acknowledge my personal preference, and perhaps allow me to proceed in that way.

A written discussion—e.g., via email— is a valuable option in situations that could be unfair or abusive.

Finally, when I was presented with the necessary written information, I replied with a 36-page document, and participated in a one-hour disciplinary hearing. By those means, I described the way in which some of my flatmates had bullied me throughout the year, finally reinforced through the false accusations they had made. They had lied about their own behaviour, too, while they were at it.

I think this bullying was motivated by the legitimate differences in the way we were each concerned about the Covid-19 pandemic, along with differences in academic stage, age, nationality and physical appearance. As a general rule, people tend to have difficulties to respect or tolerate others who are different from them. In the present instance, this difficulty drove my flatmates to submit false accusations about me while forgetting crucial information about their own behaviour. The time-consuming, 36-page response that I composed helped clarify the state of affairs. Upon a formal review, I was acquitted on all accusations.

It is important to express one's feeling of unfairness where it exists. I did so, following the Dean's resolution, through the email below, which I sent to the College (private information replaced with asterisks).

Dear All,

The Dean has produced a resolution to the disciplinary hearing that was organised due to complaints from some of my flatmates. This resolution considers my flatmates’ complaints as well as the 36-page response that I submitted and the one-hour hearing that finally took place. In the resolution, I was acquitted of all three alleged violations (my response to the summons and the Dean's resolution are attached to the present email).

As part of a fair procedure, I received documents that reflected my flatmates’ complaints, as well as the treatment of those complaints from the Graduate Accommodation Office. I would be grateful for your consideration of my views on the role of the Graduate Accommodation Office.

Biased treatment of accusations

I have considered the response from the Graduate Accommodation Office as the complaints were raised, and until I was summoned to a disciplinary hearing. In my view, the Graduate Accommodation Office failed to demonstrate enough impartiality, which resulted in unfairness towards me. The claims made by some of my flatmates via email were acted upon by the Accommodation Office without an important consideration–namely, that the accusations could be deliberately false or inaccurate. Indeed, the accusations happened to be so, as I extensively argued in my response to the summons by providing detailed descriptions of the events and documentary evidence.

Disappointingly, the embracement of my flatmates’ accusations by the Graduate Accommodation Office contrasts with the caution that is rightly applied when one calls the porters. I have sometimes called over the past three years regarding residents smoking indoors. Every time, they made me aware of the need for them to catch any students as they are smoking indoors. In the absence of the witnessing by the porters, the students can only be informed about the complaint made, but no action can be taken against them. This is a correct precaution against any false or misinformed accusations. In contrast, I think that the Graduate Accommodation Office, in some of their emails with some of my flatmates, embraced the accusations on a one-sided manner, and finally passed on these accusations to the Dean without having had any input from me about the veracity thereof.

Biased provision of evidence

Among the documents included in the disciplinary case, the Graduate Accommodation Office included a complaint that I had raised regarding the persistent failures to prevent a Covid-19 infection by my flatmates and by the housekeeper. My complaint should by no means have been mixed with the complaints against me. Its inclusion is a demonstration of the bias with which I was treated.

Legitimate differences across flatmates contributing to discrimination

I think that the biased response from the response from the Graduate Accommodation Office failed to consider the legitimate differences across the residents in these flats. The Graduate Accommodation Office know (as indeed they should) that the seven-person flats in this college are bound to include residents who are legitimately different from each other. In my flat this year, for instance, we have had important differences regarding academic stage, age and country of origin.

Academic stage: five master's students, one first-year PhD student and one third-year PhD student (I am the latter one).

Age: all my flatmates are under ***, whereas I am ***.

Country of origin: three ***, one ***, one ***, one *** and one *** (I am the latter one).

These differences must always be considered, as they can contribute to ingroup-outgroup bias in flats. Some of this bias could stem from xenophobia. Unfortunately, Lancaster University has had infamous cases of xenophobia in the past (https://scan.lancastersu.co.uk/2013/05/27/editorial-anonymous-bullying-on-facebook-groups-is-pure-cowardice/).

In conclusion, would you please consider the following remarks:

I think that the treatment of my flatmates’ complaints was unfair and biased against me.

I think my flatmates aimed to have me expelled from the flat. Their spite was due to me being the only one who has been properly concerned about the virus in this flat, and due to the legitimate differences that existed between me and my flatmates regarding academic stage, age and country of origin, as listed above.

I think that this case demonstrates that it is extremely harmful to embrace and act upon accusations in a one-sided manner, as it can result in discrimination. The biased response from the Graduate Accommodation Office has instilled a fear from false accusations in me. As a result, I feel that henceforth I will have to monitor whether I or other residents are discriminated against by the Graduate Accommodation Office.

I hope that the Graduate Accommodation Office can acknowledge my experience of the present issue, and consider it to allow a fair treatment towards every resident in the future. As such, henceforth, I will consider the present email as an integral part of this process, and I hope that the Graduate Accommodation Office does too.

Thank you for your attention,

Pablo

When I had not received a reply within two weeks, I followed up with another email referring to details in the documents that were suggestive of a bias among the staff. This staff had followed directions from some of my flatmates without requesting my perspective on the issue, my side of things, my feedback, with the same degree of trust. Why? Why had they discriminated against me?—I asked them. Did I not pay the same accommodation fees as the others? Was I not the same kind of a customer? This time, I did not limit my feedback to the Graduate College: I found it necessary to share my disappointment with some other services of the university as well.

I sincerely believe that the Graduate College Accommodation Office and the Graduate College Deanery would benefit from some training in dealing with complaints fairly, efficiently and professionally. I believe such a training would benefit all students, especially those–like myself–who are more likely to be bullied by flatmates due to having a different profile (country of origin, physical appearance, academic requirements, leisure habits, etc.). My flatmates’ bullying towards me began in the first week, when they blamed me for placing my food on shelves of the fridge which they had unilaterally chosen. They had assigned me a shelf—one at the bottom of the fridge. Episodes extended throughout the year, as I extensively described in my 36-page response to the Dean's summons, which I can share with you if that were necessary for the revision of the conditions at Graduate College.

[…]

The present case has already robbed me of precious time. I wonder if this was part of the intention of some persons involved in this process. In any case, I hope this information will be helpful for the future. Discrimination must be confronted at this university. I pay the same accommodation fees and, logically, I deserve the same trust and care as the most beloved of residents.

A design feature?

Perhaps societies are discriminatory by design. As an illustration, a comment by John Bercow on the xenophobia that lurks in a large party provides an idea of the scale of the problem. Perhaps we are not doing enough about this. This insufficiency might explain, for instance, why the death of an innocent Slovak citizen in police custody at Charleroi Airport (Brussels, Belgium) was barely and poorly covered by the European media. In case that you tolerate graphic footage, please consider the unnecessary, illegal treatment given to Jozef Chovanec. Chovanec's case is but an example. The news archives contain evidence of abuses to minority citizens in many European countries since the 2000s to this day.

Ceaseless awareness

~~Lobbying, whether we like it or not,~~ Activism is one of the methods needed to confront this plight. So, talk about it. Make sure that other potential targets of it know that it is not fair, that they should not have to put up with it, and that they might be able to confront it in one way or another. A ceaseless awareness, fostered by a relentless activism, will also help those who exert discrimination themselves, as arguably, they are often unaware of their own act.

The internet

The creation of awareness does not have to fully depend on close relationships. Email and social media allow safe activity where anonymity is necessary.

Conclusion

The university and the academia are formed by members of society. Logically, therefore, care must taken to ward off discriminatory tendencies that exist in society.

If you have suffered discrimination, or you are a potential target for it, please ensure that you are aware of this plague. Regardless of the rank that a given type of discrimination occupies in the social agenda, no discrimination should be tolerated. In addition to being unethical, discrimination breaches human and fundamental rights, national laws and institutional rules.

If you are not a target but an ally against discrimination, please continue to confront it where you witness it, and to facilitate a widespread awareness.

References

Abbink, K., & Harris, D. (2019). In-group favouritism and out-group discrimination in naturally occurring groups. PloS ONE, 14(9), e0221616. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221616

Hinton, P. (2017). Implicit stereotypes and the predictive brain: cognition and culture in “biased” person perception. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.86

Meiring, L., Subramoney, S., Thomas, K. G., Decety, J., & Fourie, M. M. (2014). Empathy and helping: Effects of racial group membership and cognitive load. South African Journal of Psychology, 44(4), 426-438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246314530280

Mendes, W. B., & Koslov, K. (2013). Brittle smiles: Positive biases toward stigmatized and outgroup targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 923–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029663