It is painfully apparent that the Universities Minister has not the faintest idea what "decolonising the curriculum" actually means. But this does suggest a problem with the term, which - as @DavidOlusoga warned last year - is easily misrepresented by bad-faith actors.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1313921793028227072
At its best, the project is about opening out, not cutting down or hiding away. As Olusoga says, it's about "making the curriculum tell everyone's stories".But the language used is commonly misrepresented (or more charitably, misunderstood) as one of purging, toppling & expelling
It's disorientating to be accused of "censoring", "photoshopping", "whitewashing" and "editing" the past, for trying to recover voices and experiences that were previously written out of it - not least by a govt that wants to stop heritage bodies talking about slavery and empire.
But universities have to recognise that they face a sustained political attack, which will drive legislation & funding, not just headlines. "Culture wars" are cheap & reap political rewards. So universities have to get better at explaining to the public what they're doing & why.
The history being taught in universities today is so much richer and more wide-ranging than when I was an undergraduate. It covers so much more of human experience, and can open students' eyes to so many different ways of living and thinking.
To defend and extend that achievement, it is worth at least asking whether a term that is so badly misunderstood outside the academy is still helpful, in describing the enriching, challenging and diversifying of knowledge from which our courses continue to benefit. END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
