How should universities approach decolonisation?

There's a certain well-established University in Melbourne, Australia, that will now face a major rebranding exercise. Queen Victoria was surely a beneficiary of slavery, and look at the very colonial title she adopted, Empress of India, hmmm....

We are looking at this 'decolonising' exercise in a positive light, rather than the negative one so often presented. We are seeking to enhance and broaden our curriculum: not losing any of the 'Western-centric' approaches but adding other voices to them, looking to widen our approach to hear voices from around the world and from all ethnicities. What we don't want to do is perpetuate the concept of the 'other' - we seek to inculcate the approach of a single race - the human race - in which each individual is valued and heard irrespective of where on the cline of skin colour they happen to be.

Scientists' categorisation of humans based on skull size or "saying black people were not as evolved as Caucasian people" were undoubtedly used as support and justification for slavery, but to claim that "slavery could never have happened without the justification of scientists" is to ignore the evidence of history. Social stratification is the key factor that facilitates slavery.

In posting this link to our 'decolonising the curriculum' discussion thread, I was reminded of a conversation at our last meeting where we discussed whether what we wanted to do was 'decolonise' or 'diversify' the curriculum. The comment was made that "'Decolonisation' has negative connotations of picking faults in the curriculum, 'diversification' is all about improving and widening it" - the latter being what we intend to achieve by the process.

You can define CRT as a methodology if you wish, but it, along with the notion of White Privilege or Institutional racism are *disputed* and should not be promoted as fact. CRT is a contentious methodology which does more to exacerbate racial tensions than create a united environment for all to thrive. Decolonisation is in itself a loaded word specifically aimed at Western Societies. Would the same arguments be made in China or Russia? Would France or Italy even contemplate the sort of changes to their national narrative that are being pushed by CRT zealots here in the UK? Decolonisation of the curriculum is not to do with increasing diversity, its to do with rewriting the narrative of the UK from the bottom up and using 'white guilt' to advance the agendas of those.who.do very well from funding in advancing their own careers.

My experience in humanities is that it is easier to develop your critical faculties by studying texts and persons from your own culture rather than from cultures for which you lack a bearing and intimate knowledge. This at least is one part of education. After that, one can look further afield to draw comparisons and learn. So I would question the idea of prioritising texts from less known cultures (e.g. Confucius as opposed to the King James Bible).

Race or skin color should not play a role in making any sort of decision. It's irrelevant to scientific inquiry. Scientific methods and excellence should be the only criteria, and this translates directly from research into teaching. Arguing otherwise is an attempt to undermine lecturers, who have spent years becoming experts in their fields.

You are wrong on Edward Said-he never called for "...teach(ing) outside the mainstream of Western canonical texts". He used the concept of Contrapuntal Reading to emphasize the importance of teaching WITHIN the so called 'Western canonical text'--to allow for a dialogue with the text.

Hmmm, good that both sides of the debate were covered, but I tend to worry when there is a talk about 'agendas' and 'manifestos', that doesn't sound like academic enquiry to me. And it is all so middle class, as almost all the academics and students who are calling for the likes of CRT are.