Neo-Liberal
‘Decolonisation’ and Medieval Studies in UK and Australian Universities
Helen
Dell
There
will always be changes in university curricula but I was recently dumbfounded
by reading that many hundreds of years of medieval and early modern English
literature would be dumped from the English Degree at the University of
Leicester, UK. Below is an excerpt from the rationale offered by the
university:
The
aim of our proposals are to offer a suite of undergraduate degrees to provide
modules that students expect of an English degree, as well as a range of
modules which are excitingly innovative and thematically driven: a
chronological literary history, a selection of modules on race, ethnicity,
sexuality and diversity, a decolonised curriculum, and new employability
modules.
The
proposed change is to refocus and strengthen English by closing English
language (which includes the BA English with English Language and the MA
English Language and Linguistics), to cease teaching medieval English and to
reduce the size of Early Modern Literature, and to develop new employability
modules in education, publishing and the creative industries. (courtesy of
David Clark).
It is
difficult to understand how removing a huge swathe of the most magnificent literature
in the English language from an English curriculum will strengthen the course. But
most egregious of all is to provide shelter for the changes under the deceitful
guise of decolonisation. It is difficult to take seriously the outraged denial
from a university spokesperson, that “There is absolutely no truth to the
suggestion that certain modules are being eliminated for being too white.”
The word “decolonisation” is an all too obvious dog-whistle to that effect,
with the apparent intention of silencing anyone afraid of being classed as
racist for criticising the changes which academics close to the scene are
calling a cost-cutting exercise. Even more importantly, ‘decolonisation’ is too
crucial a concept to be casually misapplied.
And,
as some have noticed, the either/or logic is flawed. Dr Christine Rauer, a
lecturer at the University of St Andrews, told MailOnline:
“It's hard to see why race, ethnicity, sexuality and diversity can't be taught
alongside Chaucer and Beowulf.” This was similar to the response on Twitter of
David Clark who teaches medieval literature (among other things) at Leicester:
I’m bemused by the implication none of us already
teaches/writes about race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or decolonising the
curriculum: or that our areas aren’t relevant to the discussion (@dragonista99).
English down under
Leicester
University’s strategy offers one way to prevent people from studying literature:
cutting huge chunks out of the curriculum and attempting to bemuse and deter potential
critics with loaded words. Another way to make literature inaccessible is to
make it prohibitively expensive. This is the strategy employed by the Liberal,
i.e. conservative Government currently in power here in Australia to deter
potential critics, as Australian journalist Michelle Grattan argued in The
Conversation in June 2020:
Finally,
there does seem to be an ideological tinge to the policy, notably in the
treatment of the humanities. The cost for these courses will rise by a massive
113%. … . There is an anti-intellectual streak in this government, with
ministers unsympathetic towards universities, which many of them see as
breeding grounds for left-leaning activists.
The
argument of the then Minister for Education, Dan Tehan, was that the government
wished to attract students to those courses which would feed them into the jobs
the economy required. In June, 2020, he announced changes to funding rates for
university courses as part of a plan to create “job ready graduates,” hiking up
fees for courses deemed less like to lead to jobs and bringing down fees for those
leading more speedily to employment. On June 19, Peter Hurley wrote, also in The
Conversation:
Under
the new plan, students doing teaching, nursing, clinical psychology, English
and languages will pay 46% less for their degree from next year. Students in
agriculture and maths will pay 62% less, while those studying science, health,
architecture, environmental science, IT, and engineering will be 20% better off.
But the student contribution for the humanities will go up by 113%, and the
costs for law and commerce will jump by 28%. The rationale is to encourage
students to select courses with the best employment outcomes.
The
statistics did not, however, bear out Tehan’s pronouncements:
Of the
study areas where the government is proposing students contribute more, law
graduates (95.8%) and business graduates (95.5%) are employed at rates above
the average. Humanities graduates are employed at a rate of 91.1% (above
science and maths) (Hurley).
Michelle
Grattan and Peter Hurley both write for The Conversation, a “collaboration
between academics and journalists” whose motto is “Academic rigour,
journalistic flair.” Both saw through the bias in Tehan’s (and the
government’s) arguments. As numerous responses
to the proposed Leicester changes also make clear, studying literature,
studying the humanities, teaches you to think for yourself, teaches you to pay
attention. You learn to spot the inconsistencies, the illogicality, the loaded
words with which the dishonest attempt to paper over their real intentions. Listening
attentively to people talking is a large part of the work and the pleasure of
literature and drama.
But
over and above these considerations, there is something almost blasphemous
about a system which attempts to bribe and bully students to place themselves,
not where their hearts lead them but where financial constraints force them. (Students
in the Humanities at Australian Universities may find themselves shouldering a
lifelong debt). Where is there here any hint of the idea of a vocation, a
calling? I don’t wish to sound too romantic. People have to live, have to earn
money to feed themselves and their kids, and communities need doctors,
architects, nurses, etc. But there is more to life and to education than being
fed into the machine of economic requirements or even social needs. The best
doctors, architects and nurses etc. are those who want to be.
To end
on a personal note, my own life has been enriched by an education and work
spent in the study and practice of literature and music. As a reader, a writer,
a singer, listener and teacher, I have known a love and enjoyment greater than
I could have imagined possible when I first left school. That love and
enjoyment was, to a great extent, the gift of my teachers at different
universities in Melbourne: Melbourne, Monash and LaTrobe. My thanks to all of
them and to everyone who helped, encouraged and inspired me along the way. I
can only offer the hope for an education so blessed to all those entering universities
now.
Helen
Dell
Honorary
Research Fellow, English and Theatre Studies
School
of Culture and Communication, University of Melbourne