The Elephant In The Room
Introduction
William O'Reilly, Nicola Morrison, Rachel Reeves, Anna Lora-Wainwright, Neri Oxman, John Hattie, Susannah Dickinson, Claudine Gay, Jason Arday.
All 9 of these people were accused of cheating in academia. Claudine Gay and Jason Arday were harassed into resignation. The other 7 were white.
Simon Goldhill was a world leading classicist at the University of Cambridge before resigning in disgrace following sexual misconduct allegations.
Dr. Peter Hutchinson is a Cambridge professor who was allowed to continue in his role after complaints of sexist comments, with restrictions. After breaking those restrictions he was "permanently excluded". He was re-appointed two years later and resigned after it broke that he wrote erotic fiction about his students.
The Telegraph has no articles on Simon Goldhill or Peter Hutchinson in the 7 years since Hutchison's story broke. They have provided 32 articles on Jason Arday's plagiarism in 6 weeks.
You Already Know Why.
A lot of people are far more comfortable with systemic racism in theory than in practice. A lot of people are willing to say that racism is "a factor" but that the Arday story is very much within the public interest. A lot of people are very uncomfortable with the fact that only Arday's story is deemed to be in the public interest. Because they too have been conned into caring about it over the genuinely harmful actions of white men in the same spaces.
It is very uncomfortable to be unwittingly propagating a racist hate mob, more uncomfortable is the sheer inability to comment on this phenomenon.
Because I know What Happens if I point out What's Going On Here.
If I, with my own relationship to race were to make this assertion in conversation with some of these people. I would immediately be met with:
Layer 1: Plausible Deniability
I'm a teaching assistant in a white area, and there's a study I often think about. Teachers are asked to watch for misbehaviour, but it's a trick, the only thing being logged is where they're looking. And they were looking at the black kids. I think of studies about how kids in these white areas as young as 5 are more likely to see black and brown people as scarier. I think of the one black kid when I was working in year 6 and the way the other kids think he's being aggressive every time he mistimes a tackle at the lunchtime game.
I think of the canteen lady who asked if I knew the ham and cheese Panini had pork in it for seven years straight. I think of the way I was looked at in the pub next to my old flat. The way the street wide group chat was on high alert when I walked to my grandparents. I think of the kids who refuse to learn how to pronounce or spell my name.
But above all. I think about what happens when you bring any of it up.
So many people believe in subconscious bias as an abstract. If I were to point the study out to them, I think a lot of them wouldn't object to its findings. If I were to ever suggest that they were replicating the study, I would be ostracised immediately for daring to suggest such a thing. They are sheltered in their plausible deniability. Everyone acknowledges the statistic but no one thinks they are part of it. Everyone knows there shouldn't be 32 articles, but they read them anyway.
Layer 2: You
So I attempted to do it anyway. I have decided to face this discomfort head on and address the problem where it is. Still, they acknowledge the prevalence of race in theory, but not in practice. Despite all reason, they deem the notoriety of this story as a matter of public interest. It's not just racism after all! As for the stories that are probably more important to the public interest that didn't receive anywhere near as much of a platform? They are not to be acknowledged.
To acknowledge them is to acknowledge not just why the press cares, but why you care. Why you as a person have successfully been conned into reading article after article. Why you don't have sympathy for the guy and think most of the campaign that harassed him into suicide was justified, but give the sexual assault by white professors in the same university nothing beyond passing acknowledgement. Why you think he "brought it on himself" by trying to shut a story like this down in its infancy. Why you said that "his death denies us accountability for his actions".
Why is it only his actions that deserve such vitriolic accountability? Why is it only his that you care about to this extent?
Layer 3: The Elephant
I trust dear reader, that you by this point know that I'm pulling from real conversations. I'm now going to say here what I could never say directly. There is a very obvious reason as to why these people don't see the pattern here, why there is an implicit refusal to see race as the primary motivator. That reason is baked into the fundamentally different lived experiences of me and them before the point of this conversation.
If I were to mention that being white might cloud the laymans judgement when it comes to the ability to spot, correctly prioritise, not fall for and accurately understand racism, I'm sure this person would probably agree with me. I'm pretty confident in fact. If I were to ever actually say that applied to them? I am the crazy insane brown guy who hates white people. In fact, I fear that being openly racialised on the internet instead of completely anonymous has probably hindered my ability to be trusted pointing out racism in general. I have often been told I don't see things through any other lens, and any conversation about the topic is immediately shut down.