Blog Task 3: Race

—

by

Rory Parnell-Mooney
in
Approaches to Addressing Racism in Higher Education

In examining approaches to addressing racism within education, it becomes clear that while individual interventions have value, sustainable change must be grounded in systemic critique. The readings and media provided before our workshop offered multiple entry points to understanding how racism functions within UK education and, more specifically, within the UAL system, and how different approaches may either challenge or reinforce these structures.

Bradbury (2020) draws on Critical Race Theory (CRT) to examine the assessment of bilingual learners in England, revealing how ostensibly neutral policies often reinforce racial hierarchies. The author critiques the deficit framing of bilingualism in policy discourse, positioning it as a form of institutional racism embedded in practice. This is a powerful reminder that race and racism are not peripheral issues in education but are often built into its core functions. In the context of arts higher education, we might ask similar questions: What forms of knowledge are validated in assessment? Are ‘alternative’ cultural references seen as supplementary or central? And how do we challenge these unconscious biases in our assessment practices?

Garrett’s (2024) study of racialised PhD candidates in UK higher education provides a sobering look at the long-term impact of institutional racism on academic careers. Her findings indicate that the racialised subjects she interviewed often saw their futures as limited or precarious. The intersection of racism with career progression resonates with experiences shared by staff and students in creative fields, where mentorship, visibility, and belonging are often mediated by networks shaped by race and class. Garrett’s work foregrounds the emotional and psychological labour involved in navigating predominantly white institutions.

Sadiq’s (2023) TEDx talk on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) raises the issue of performativity in institutional responses to racism. He warns against tokenistic or compliance-driven DEI work and argues for a reorientation toward structural change. His position as a DEI practitioner who is both critical and constructive lends his insights particular weight. Within creative education, this calls for an interrogation of the politics of visibility: Is increasing representation enough if the underlying systems of value remain unchanged?

In group discussions in the workshop on race, we discussed this idea of performative DEI actions and how UAL as an institution has an anti-racism action plan that is vague and lacks depth in terms of action. We focused on conversations around the objective of having anti-racism education across the university and what this actually looks like for students and staff currently working/enrolled at the university. This anti-racism education for us focused only on staff and then asked the staff to bring this education into their teaching spaces. it was seen that this education for staff was entirly online and done in a similar way to manditory health and safty training modules, which was seen as inadequate.

The Channel 4 documentary The School That Tried to End Racism (2020) demonstrates a well-meaning but ultimately limited approach, focusing on individual bias without fully addressing systemic inequalities. While racial literacy is crucial, the risk of overemphasising unconscious bias training is that it obscures the broader mechanisms that reproduce racial inequity, such as curricula, hiring practices, and institutional culture, in shor,t the system as well as the academic needs to be integrated.

By contrast, Orr’s (2022) Telegraph video positions anti-racism as ideological overreach. This backlash rhetoric is significant not because it offers valid critique, but because it reflects the entrenchment of whiteness as the default in educational institutions. It is a stark reminder that anti-racist work is often met with resistance, especially when it challenges power structures.

In my own context—working in fashion design education—these resources underscore the need to move beyond surface-level inclusion. Anti-racist pedagogy must involve critical interrogation of the canon, of whose histories and aesthetics are prioritised, and of who gets to feel they belong. As Bradbury (2020) and Garrett (2024) argue, this work is deeply structural. It is also, as Sadiq (2023) notes, not a matter of charity or optics but of justice.

Reference List

Bradbury, A., 2020. A critical race theory framework for education policy analysis: The case of bilingual learners and assessment policy in England. Race Ethnicity and Education, 23(2), pp.241–260.

Garrett, R., 2024. Racism shapes careers: career trajectories and imagined futures of racialised minority PhDs in UK higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, pp.1–15.

Orr, J., 2022. Revealed: The charity turning UK universities woke. The Telegraph. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRM6vOPTjuU [Accessed 18 Jun 2025].

Sadiq, A., 2023. Diversity, Equity & Inclusion: Learning how to get it right. TEDx Talks. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR4wz1b54hw [Accessed 18 Jun 2025].

Channel 4, 2020. The School That Tried to End Racism. Channel 4. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I3wJ7pJUjg [Accessed 18 Jun 2025].

Comments

4 responses to “Blog Task 3: Race”

  1. Rosa Pearks Avatar
    Rosa Pearks

    I totally agree with your overarching point that any meaningful changes in addressing racism must involve systemic critique, and that through policy and other factors, racism is embedded into all levels of education. The questions you pose regarding higher education are thought provoking, and have made me consider how they relate to my own teaching. It has made me think about what further questions I could ask myself to encourage change within the area I teach. As you go on to discuss though, ultimately there needs to be systemic change. UAL’s anti-racism policy does have some problems, including the fact that a large part of it is expected to be implemented by staff, and while we can try our best to do this, it will be challenging without changes at a higher level. Similarly, the online trainings discussed in the policy are also perhaps not the most effective way to help people learn about diversity. I think there is a danger that these online trainings could be seen as the compliance driven DEI work Sadiq discusses, and perhaps more community learning may be more effective in driving systemic change.

    Reply
  2. Gem Smith Avatar
    Gem Smith

    This was an interesting and thought-provoking blog looking at race within HE. I agree with Rory that there will not be any suitable change within HE education regarding racism until we go to the foundation of the matter. It is not until we begin to critique the systemic institution that we can then see some glimpses of real change.

    Rory highlighted regarding the channel 4 video documentary ‘The School that tried to end racism’ that this video dealt with the individual bias, and this was somewhat overshadowed by the main reason concerning institutional and societal values that help to form these individual biases. Society portrays everyday stereotypes of groups of people, and we are almost programmed to believe the narrative.

    This video also highlighted to me through the physical layout of students on the field the divide between groups of people and where they are allowed to start in this race of life. The impact of their starting position spoke volumes and reflected how the individual felt about their abilities and chances of survival as a result. It was also interesting to listen to the reactions of the students that started ahead and how they felt about the situation as well as the students that were left behind. It made me stop and think what is my role in the whole equation? What part do I play?

    I also agree with Rory when they referred to Sadiq when they spoke about the Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) training that it sometimes feels as though it is compliance driven and an act of tokenism or even a tick box exercise. As Rosa highlighted in their blog that creating training that is a lived experience will have more impact than conducting basic compulsory training. This makes me question the education institution and its approach to making changes to (DEI).

    I thought it was powerful, and I totally agree when Rory spoke about race and racism, and that it is built into the core functions. This is so true. Until this is addressed the struggle will continue to rise. We must start at the core otherwise as much as we are making differences where we are, this is bigger than this. I liked when Rory pointed out that as much as increasing representation is good, is this enough if the value system is unchanged? Good question. This is a systemic and global concern.

    Reply
  3. Claudia Nuzzo Avatar
    Claudia Nuzzo

    This paragraph made me think that maybe a different approach is needed. Online training is not enough. Working on preventing racism and learning how to be anti racist should not rely only on digital modules. These topics need real human interaction. A face to face setting allows people to ask questions, share experiences and reflect in a deeper way. Something like focus groups or open conversations might work better in this context. What you describe here really shows how limited the current approach is and why UAL should look at other ways to support proper anti racism education.

    My facilitator role at the Cobra Collective has given me a lot of insight into how things could be done differently, for example, using participatory methodologies. But again, this is something that needs to be properly planned and implemented. Time and funding must be allocated so staff can actually engage with this work in a meaningful way.

    Reply
  4. Emily Sakai Avatar
    Emily Sakai

    You’ve raised an important point about how so-called “neutral” policies often mask systemic biases, as Bradbury highlights. In our PG Cert, I’ve come to see how institutional claims of neutrality often reflect a deeper alignment with positivism—prioritising objectivity, detachment, and empirical evidence—while marginalising interpretivist and critical approaches that centre reflexivity, positionality, and lived experience.

    This dominance of positivism, rooted in Enlightenment rationalism, continues to shape research and policy, yet it has failed to address structural inequalities. Orr’s Telegraph segment, while raising valid concerns about self-censorship, overlooks this epistemological bias. By dismissing interpretivist and critical perspectives as merely ideological, they ignore their own positionality and the power dynamics embedded in knowledge production.

    A striking example is the gender bias in medical research, where male bodies are often the default—highlighting how “objective” science can perpetuate exclusion. This isn’t a pursuit of truth, but a reflection of whose truths are valued.

    I also share your concern about the superficiality of online anti-racism training. If staff development is this limited, how are students—especially those from diverse backgrounds—being meaningfully engaged? One of my students recently critiqued UAL as “authoritarian leftist” for restricting hate speech. While his argument lacked depth, it revealed discomfort with institutional approaches to equity—something we need to unpack, not dismiss.

    As for the Channel 4 documentary, I agree—it felt oversimplified, likely tailored for younger audiences. Still, it opens the door for broader conversations about race and education.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Gem Smith Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *