Onuapa Kwabena:

Your experience, as recounted below about the Columbia academic "terrorist", was similar to what my wife suffered as a brand new Assistant Professor. It was that early in her career that she was appointed Book Review Editor of Urban Affairs Review Journal. She allowed a very scathing and negative review of a book by a young scholar to be published of a book by a full professor on an Ivy League campus. When the author of the book e-mailed to ask why the review was published, she explained that it was her policy not to alter reviews by colleagues needlessly, unless it is a typo or a glaring error that can be altered to bring about clarity. "Even that i contact the reviewer to explain what we are doing to his/her review to be published. As I recall, with sadness, he ended his e-mail conversation intimidatingly: "If you continue like this, I bet that you won't last in academia."

Rather, my spouse became the youngest person to be promoted to the ranks of associate and full professor (with tenure) in a Research One university's political science Department; she later became a substantive Dean and served for almost six years; today, she is a full Professor as well as a Vice President on another Research One campus.

Well, I have tried to be as benevolent and generous as possible in writing letters of support for several younger colleagues. I remember writing a strong letter of recommendation for a part-time, junior faculty colleague in another field, as she sought a new tenure-track position; this person is in Education, and I am in History or Journalism, and now, aspects of Law. An older scholar, in History, who knew me well, saw on his campus my strong letter in support of the junior colleague. He contacted me, mostly to berate me, adding: "You are in History, what is your business writing a letter of recommendation for this person in education? Did you work with her, or did you teach her? I did not know that you are one of those polluting academia this way!"

I felt bad, and it was then that I started thinking about why someone in education won't go to his/her former professors or colleagues in education, etc for needed letters. When I later met the fellow senior historian, who berated me before, he explained his rationale for "condemning" me in writing the strong letter for the female scholar in education, while I am in history, etc. His rationale did make some sense: he explained that some junior faculty persons are notorious in/for their disrespect of senior colleagues. Therefore, when they needed such letters, they felt uncomfortable to ask. I said: "What about the few, who probably just want to keep their new job searches confidential or secret from their home institutions and senior colleagues?" "Well, there are few like that, but I do not want you to keep on rewarding nasty attitudes on the part of junior faculty," he added.

Well, Professor (Nana) Ali A Mazrui of blessed memory, that sagacious Mwalimu, and a few other senior colleagues taught us that generosity of scholarship and intellectual pampering are necessary in mentoring the younger generation. Therefore, some of us try to do our best, but we sometimes fall short. In fact, on one occasion, after a hospitalization and surgery (with threats of blood clots), I was so weak that I could not answer positively an African friend's request for a letter of recommendation; I wondered, if I could "conjure" one for the young man by all means, as it was hard for me to sit down to write or type. The young man and I talked, and I suggested alternative writers of the letter he needed; I even telephoned and privately urged some senior colleagues to write for him. When he got the new job, he "rubbed" it in my face: just like, you did not help me, but I got the job, anyway. Right now, he is in a new higher position; when I sent him a note of congratulations, I never heard anything back. it seems he is still fuming that I "refused" to write to support him earlier, and how sad!!!

Therefore, Onuapa Kwabena, it seems to be a two-way street on our wretched earth (thanks to Fanon): with equally nasty fellow senior colleagues as well as, similarly, nasty junior colleagues!!! How do we strike the balance? In his great words to end some of his very illuminating dialogue postings, VC Aluko may be quoted now: "There you have it."

A.B. Assensoh.

From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Kwabena Akurang-Parry <kaparry@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 10:37 AM
To: Cornelius Hamelberg; usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - "What if British historians learned Gaelic, Yoruba and Urdu, instead of, say, German and French?"

I used to do a lot of academic activism on H-Net (H-Africa, H-West Africa and H-Slavery). Once scholar at Columbia University, if I recall well, wrote an article in the New York Times and kept using African slave trade instead of the Atlantic slave trade which in my opinion is a more acceptable inclusive concept. During the ensuing discussions, a prominent Africanist wrote via my private email to say that I would remain in a second-tier non-research university forever because of my incessant noise! I happily responded that I was happy because my productivity as a scholar was what mattered, not where I was teaching and added that I was sorry that he had been in a research university all his life yet his academic productivity was stagnant defined by recycling his time-worn publications. But the man was prophetic: I tried several times to move to a research university, but failed. I had stepped on large toes I guess.

I have said this before and would say it again. We are selfish. Apart from Oga Falola, for example, who has been helpful in many ways to a number of us who taught or are still teaching in the USA, we don't seem to care about the social and academic welfare of our African colleagues. Mentoring among us is abysmal. Of course, I am speaking from my own perspectives. There are some among us who refuse to write reference letters, wouldn't share CFPs, very passive in the academy, and docile to the powers that be. We have to work as a team of scholars to dent racism in the academy. How many of us serve on editorial boards, how many us of get grants, etc.? Some Africanist journals just list the names of African scholars as a cosmetic addition to their editorial teams/boards. Like our politicians at home, we are so happy and grateful to receive crumbs from the hegemonic white establishment. People treat you they way you want them to handle you. Just imagine if Oga Falola was not an African! His name would have been trumpeted by the establishment. We know non-Africans who respectively write a marginal book or two and are projected by the white establishment as "stars"!

From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelberg@gmail.com>
Sent: November 19, 2018 1:42 PM
To: USA Africa Dialogue Series
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - "What if British historians learned Gaelic, Yoruba and Urdu, instead of, say, German and French?"

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n22/sadiah-qureshi/short-cuts

larger | smaller

Short Cuts

Sadiah Qureshi

On 22 October, Olivette Otele – a scholar of British and French colonialism who teaches at Bath Spa University – became the first black woman to be appointed to a chair in history at a UK university, and only the second black academic (the first was Hakim Adi, who teaches the history of Africa and the African diaspora at the University of Chichester). With her promotion, the number of professors in the UK who are black increases to 116, out of a total of nearly 19,000. Inevitably, Otele was asked if her promotion had been inspired by political correctness. For some academics, mainly white men, a black woman making history during Black History Month – October – was not a happy coincidence but a conspiracy. (At Bath Spa, all applications for professorships are submitted in the spring, and all results announced in October.)

The Royal Historical Society is currently celebrating its 150th anniversary. Like so many organisations of a certain age, it originally had only male members. Its library is crowded with portraits of past presidents: all are white and only two, past and present, have been women – one of them is the current incumbent, Margot Finn. Last month, the RHS published Race, Ethnicity and Equality in UK History, the first report of its kind. It found not only that history is an overwhelmingly white discipline but that it is significantly whiter than other university subjects: 93.7 per cent of history staff are white, compared to 85 per cent in the sector generally; 2.2 per cent are Asian, 1.6 per cent are of mixed heritage and only 0.5 per cent are black. Nearly 90 per cent of undergraduates studying history or philosophy – the official statistics group the subjects together – are white, 4 per cent are Asian, 2.4 per cent are black and 3.9 per cent are mixed. Most undergraduates have around the same likelihood of achieving a 2:1, but white students are 9 per cent more likely to get a first.

I was one of the people who worked on the report, and at its launch I met many historians of colour who had more to say about the marginalisation they had experienced, often as the only person of colour in their department. Conference organisers frequently fail to invite any people of colour to speak or invite them only to talk about diversity. Drawing on more than seven hundred responses, the report reveals that nearly a third of non-white university staff and students have experienced discrimination or abuse based on their race or ethnicity, the majority of it coming from other staff, but a significant proportion from students and the public. Many reported that complaints were not taken seriously. 'Whenever I tried to discuss it with my colleagues I was told unequivocally that I was imagining it,' one respondent noted. Others have faced retaliation: one lecturer and union activist recorded episodes of bullying, harassment and victimisation of staff of colour.

Critics made their disapproval clear even before the report was written. A number of respondents to the survey made racist remarks. After it was published, Zareer Masani in the Telegraph lamented the left's attempts to degrade 'the subject of history with its anti-Western political correctness'. The most telling criticisms appeared in two letters to the Times. Nigel Biggar, a regius professor of theology at Oxford, maintained that there was 'reason to be sceptical of the … campaign to promote "Black History" … it is more important that [students] know the history of that part of the globe for which they will have direct responsibility as citizens – namely the United Kingdom. They need to appreciate how we British have come to be as we are and what is valuable about our inheritance.' Here, the conflation between British history and white history is so naturalised that Biggar assumes any attempt to include black history must result in students not learning about Britain. This is of course to ignore the centuries-long black presence in Britain, never mind the imperial legacy. The Times also published a letter from Gillian Evans, an emeritus professor of medieval theology and intellectual history at Cambridge. She noted that the racially marginalised were joining 'feminists' in making demands for recognition (Evans's own demands for recognition stretched to taking Cambridge to court for failing to promote her) and admitted to being 'irritated' by the 'attempt to criticise the history syllabus for "lack of ethnic diversity"'. Trained to detect 'repeating patterns across the centuries', she couldn't 'see how replacing one alleged set of distortions with another currently fashionable one' would bring any historian 'closer to the open-minded pursuit of truth'.

The claim to be an objective observer reliant on inductive reasoning is superficially plausible, but as historians and philosophers of science have long been aware, all data collection is subjective because our assumptions determine the questions we ask, where we seek answers, whose knowledge we deem reliable and the frameworks we use to make sense of our findings. How else can we explain the failure of so many historical truth-seekers to notice, or care about, the entrenched whiteness of their discipline?

Following the publication of the report, many university departments have scheduled discussions of the findings. In some places, efforts were already being made to revise curricula. The most positive finding in the report is that 86 per cent of respondents' departments have recently extended the scope of their research and teaching beyond Britain and Europe. This greater geographical range is welcome, but it's still the case that global history is usually taught in optional courses, while introductory surveys and textbooks remain stubbornly Eurocentric. If more people of colour are to teach and study history, reforms are needed. Over the years, I've seen students and parents become increasingly concerned about the whiteness of the curriculum and the relentless and alienating focus – when broader histories are brought into play – on trauma and violence.

But really to eliminate Eurocentrism would require the rethinking of conceptual and methodological approaches. What if British historians learned Gaelic, Yoruba and Urdu, instead of, say, German and French? Academics ask students to read Tacitus, Herodotus, Max Weber, Karl Marx, Michel Foucault, Antonio Gramsci, Jacques Derrida and, more rarely, Judith Butler. But how many are also required to read Audre Lorde, Stuart Hall, Frantz Fanon, Jasbir Puar, Sara Ahmed, Kim TallBear or Kimberlé Crenshaw? What if these writers were required reading for everyone? Present curricula assume that white men write about universal truths, while people of colour are only expert in a narrow field – usually to do with questions of their identity and heritage. This distinction ought to end. Fed up with the limitations of their courses, students are creating their own resources and networks: undergraduates studying for the human, social and political sciences degree at Cambridge recently put together an openly accessible decolonial reading list.

Addressing structural racism in the discipline will make for better history and better historians. It might also create better working environments. Some years ago, a senior white male professor asked if I was attending an evening event he was involved with. I said I couldn't. In a perfectly jovial tone, but obviously frustrated, he said: 'You fucker!' I pointed out it was Ramadan. 'Why can't Ramadan happen at the same time every year?' he asked. I mumbled something about Islam's lunar calendar. He knew it was unreasonable to expect me to go, but he didn't apologise. This encounter is far from the worst I have endured, but it sticks in my mind because the professor was so explicit about his dissatisfaction. He's probably forgotten all about it.

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Dialogues

Monday, November 19, 2018

Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - "What if British historians learned Gaelic, Yoruba and Urdu, instead of, say, German and French?"

Short Cuts

Sadiah Qureshi

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me