In the article, and an accompanying comment piece, Mr Lammy unveils devastating statistic after devastating statistic - Oxford accepted just one black Caribbean student in 2009, one Oxford college has admitted no black students for five years, white applicants are more likely to be successful than black applicants at all but one Cambridge college.
But perhaps the starkest statistic of all is this. The Guardian reports: 'The FoI data also shows that of more than 1,500 academic and lab staff at Cambridge, none are black.'
That's an astonishing claim... But also one that's very easy to check.
So we had a quick Google, and, well, it's soon clear why the Guardian chose to preface that particular claim with 'The FoI data also shows...'
For a start, there's a Black and Minority Ethnic Staff Network at Cambridge University, which seems a surprisingly active group for one with no black staff members to represent.
And then, looking at various faculties' photo lists, well... there do actually seem to be some black staff members.
Not many, granted. Not enough, no doubt. But people like Dr Oke Odudu (pictured), who as far as we can Google appears to be very much still a law fellow at Emmanuel College, might beg to differ with the bald assertion that Cambridge University has no black academics. Dr Odudu was born in Blackburn to British-Nigerian parents, and as this Lancashire Telegraph article shows, has made something of a point of showing that Cambridge is not out of reach for ethnic minority students, and encouraging them to apply and defy the odds. When he reads the Guardian we're guessing he may not be thrilled...
It may be we're wrong, of course, in which case we stand ready to be speedily corrected by the Guardian. No doubt their story accurately reflects the FOI data they were given. And none of this takes away from the essential thrust of the story, which is that ethnic minorities are underrepresented at Oxbridge.
But then, we knew that already. The power of the story is in the details. And we're not entirely convinced by these details.
12 comments:
Caribbean, not Carribean. Ever thought of employing someone who can spell?
Erm sorry about that... duly corrected
Nice expose, well done, and what a poor, poor piece of journalism from the Guardian in the first place.
Oh, and Neil, get a life.
It's not a 'poor piece of journalism,' it's a comment piece. The journalism is here and you will see that Lammy is simply repeating the information from the FoI request. I suspect that it is the distinction between employing a Briton of Black Carribean origin and employing an African academic. If Cambridge has none of the former, I think this counts as a legitimate statistic even if Lammy overblew the wording.
Thanks for the advice, Anonymous. Let ignorance rule.
The Cambridge FOI data id's no black academic staff. Possible explanations : the FOI response is wrong, the academic you ID'd is one of those who refused to give info about their ethnic origin [under 300 in this category], he has left but the site has not been updated.
Earlier today, David Lammy posted his "evidence" to back his assertion that Cambridge has no black academics.
This PDF file shows that 17% of staff declined to provide data on their ethnicity. It also shows one member of staff is classed as Mixed - White and Black African. Mixed race black/white people are generally considered black in many contexts.
To jump from 17% who won't answer the question to make the extremely damaging assertion that Cambridge has no black academics is grossly irresponsible and shows Mr Lammy's scant regard for accuracy. As others have mentioned, a quick Google search shows his claim to be the nonsense it is.
Mr Lammy has no doubt been very successful at convincing a new generation of black students that they needn't bother applying to Oxbridge, but then addressing that issue was never the aim here. It's just about tuition fees and trying to stick one on the government.
If Mr Lammy was concerned about broadening university access he should have done more about it when he was a minister in the previous government.
Found this guy on linked in, and granted it may be that he has not kept his profile up to date but he lists himself as currently Cambridge lecturer.
However I support Adrian's comment too.
Neiljenkin. Ever thought of taking that petty oneupmanship and stuffing it up your smug arse?
Alistair, It's not one-upmanship, there's two serious points here:
1) Simple spelling errors undermine the authority of a piece in many people's eyes. This is an excellent piece of work – but I nearly stopped reading.
2) Good stuff on the net tends to get repeated; a single error can be multiplied many times, so there is a big chance that someone who has never seen the word will clock its incorrect spelling and then repeat it.
Your names have a number of variations. Doesn't it cheese you off when people get them wrong?
Well, that's how I feel when I see errors in good articles: it makes me grumpy and I want to see them fixed quickly. I don't have much tolerance for people who would rather let them go. Sorry!
NeilJenkin. "There's two serious points..."? There is two serious points? Shouldn't you get your basic grammar right before you start criticising someone's basic spelling?
Grateful for the correction, that's idiomatic for you, Alistair. I was writing quickly and informally to a readership of one. So should the spelling have been corrected or left?
Post a Comment