The Board of Trustees of London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) has accepted ‘in full’ the recommendations of the independent external investigation into the Habib affair.
We wrote of the witch-hunt against SOAS director Adam Habib by students, unions and other interested parties regarding his online meeting with students on 11 March, and events arising from that.
Daily Friend wrote about Habib’s plight here, here, here, here and here. Habib spoke the word ‘nigger’ when explaining the disciplinary action that would be taken under his watch as director of SOAS were it to be found that anyone had used the word offensively.
Students and others erupted in a frenzy of righteous indignation over Habib’s ‘blasphemy’ in uttering the word aloud. The lead antagonist pronounced that Habib was not ‘black’, and therefore not permitted to use the word – in any context. Habib, who was only appointed in January this year, was duly suspended.
SOAS students, its professional and administrative staff union, and everyone with a pronounced sense of outrage, demanded his dismissal. However, South African organisations – notably the IRR – and well-known individuals protested to SOAS, arguing that he was not racist, had not done anything wrong and must be reinstated.
On 5 May Marie Staunton, Chair of the SOAS Board of Trustees, sent an email to staff and students on the outcome of the independent external investigation into the 11 March student meeting and events arising from it, which exonerated Habib, clearing the way for his return to office as director of SOAS.
Staunton said that the board also accepted the recommendations contained in the external investigators’ report.
‘Pain and distress’
Then, instead of being critical of the conduct that led to the affair, she said that SOAS wanted ‘to start by acknowledging the pain and distress caused to many in our community – and we thank everyone for their engagement with the independent investigation. We are taking this opportunity to apologise again to all those who have been so affected and distressed by these events.’
The actions SOAS agreed to include:
- putting in place a “restorative justice” approach for the meeting of 11 March and events arising therefrom;
- developing a clear policy for the use of the ’n-word’;
- continuing to take forward the process of dialogue between the SOAS community of staff & students, and the SOAS leadership;
- providing specific advice and support for the Director (Habib) on equality, diversity issues in the higher education sector; and
- producing in due course a statement from the Board on lessons learned from this experience and regular reporting to the SOAS community.
The only gratifying aspect was the resumption of Habib’s duties as director from Monday 10 May.
Otherwise, everything else was woke capitulation. Staunton says: ‘I want to be clear especially on the use of the n-word: the report notes that the Director spoke the word in full while trying to say that it should not be used within the SOAS community, and that he has since acknowledged that speaking the word in full was a mistake, for which he has apologised.’
What SOAS has confirmed within the world of ‘woke’ is that ’nigger’ has ineffability. It matters not whether it was said, as Prof.David Benatar says, as a matter of saying (with clearly no intention to mean it as an insult) or a matter of meaning (saying it with the intention to insult). It is an ‘unsayable’ word except, presumably, by the high priests of critical race theory who have the power to determine who has the right to say ‘the word’.
Ineffability
The tamed version – ‘the n-word’ – is becoming imbued with the same ineffability as the original. Staunton again: ‘The report found that Professor Habib’s mistake of vocalising of the n-word in full, while trying to say that using the word offensively is unacceptable, did not in itself make him a racist.’
Thus SOAS has deemed it ineffable.
Then, in an act of self-abasement, Habib responded: ‘I want to again apologise to all the SOAS community for my conduct, for the offence and hurt, and for the disruption this has caused.
‘I reiterate my commitment to act against all forms of racism, and to work with the SOAS community in identifying and fashioning specific interventions to address the exclusionary experiences of black people and other communities within the institution.
‘There is a lot to do to rebuild from this. There is action to be taken to address racism and anti-Blackness. I believe we can and should do this together. I understand why some in our community will take a long time to trust me. I promise I will do all I can to re-earn your trust and respect.
Habib may have kept his job, to the dismay of the baying crowd, but actually they got what they wanted: repeated and cringing apologies, an acknowledgment in effect that what he did was untenable and that he accepts that he is not a black man as defined by the 20-year-old who had the temerity to decide this.
The report begs the students to ‘bring themselves to work with SOAS to implement action so that together we can achieve the important work that is at the heart of SOAS’.
‘We want to reaffirm that SOAS is committed to anti-racism, to tackling hate and anti-Blackness, to bringing people together and to listening and learning throughout life. It is important that we move forward collectively as an institution now in the best interests of everyone in the SOAS community.’
So the SOAS community is urged to listen, learn and move forward. The intemperate and self-righteous demands from staff and students do not suggest a group of people who care what their superiors say.
Next act of criminality
Perhaps Habib ought to give it a few months and then resign. He never knows when the next act of criminality will be committed, because he can’t know. The crime only becomes known as a crime when someone accuses him of a crime. He will tread on eggshells from here onward.
So, despite Habib not being wrong, management will offer continued support to the offended from their Academic Advisor, the Student Support Officers or through the Student Advice and Wellbeing team.
SOAS effectively says that for those who didn’t get the dismissal they so wanted, they can resort to ‘Restorative Justice’ on MySOAS.
Perhaps a little satisfaction can be gained from the fact that Sabrina and Yasmin, the Co-Presidents for Democracy and Education and Welfare Campaigns at SOAS, have stepped down.
‘As student representatives and SOAS trustees, the decision for SOAS to pursue a restorative justice approach to “resolve” the issue with Adam Habib means that we cannot in good conscience remain Trustees of an organisation that has chosen this route forward for SOAS. We do not believe that it is in the best interests of the community. In addition, as a Union we have clear and democratically passed policy calling for the removal of Adam Habib as Director of SOAS. We cannot continue in our roles on the Board especially given that all Board decisions are made as a collective and we would have been expected to publicly support the decision to reinstate him. We have been clear in our positions as student Trustees of the harm caused to the community and the overwhelming call from both Unison and the SU in democratic votes, for Adam Habib’s removal from office. Therefore it is no longer correct or appropriate for us to continue our roles on the SOAS Board of Trustees.’
No independent enquiries or democracy, then?
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend