 Mae gweithio'r Fflaen nhw er mwyn i gael gweld ein pwysigau yn ei gwneud ar gyfer ymwybod a'r eich rhagorau Cymru, yn ymgyrch i gael eich cynhyrchu a llifloedd. Ymgyrch yn y UK, rydyn ni'n gydig o'r ffazor, rydyn ni'n ffordd yn eich cyfraffwyr. A dyna'n gwybod i gydig i'r cyfraffwyr, mae'n gwybod i'r cyfraffwyr. Mae y gwybod i'r cyfraffwyr yn ymgyrch yn 2003 ar gyfer y newydd yng ngyfaf. y gwaith yng Nghymru yn ffynol yn gweithio ymlaen nhw'n gweithio, a bobl yn masyeth ymddangos lle i fynd o'r lleiooplanol i gweithio ar gyfer y detach ymgyrским. A archifedigion i fynd i ni wedi bod yn gesğimu ei beth byt. Felly mae'r gwaith llyfr yn gweithio ei cynnig i gael ar gweithio'r dal. Mae'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gwasanaeth ymgyrchau yn wyeld agor. Mae'r gwaith gweithio'r gweithio'r gwaith er mwyn yw i gael y ddechrau. Is it important? It's important because it contains protected characteristics of which race is one. The ECU, the Equality Challenge Unit, introduced the Athena Swan Charter in 2003. The Athena Swan Charter, again, is a very important piece of policy legislation. It was introduced to advance the position of women in STEM subjects, science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine in universities. Ten years since its introduction, the Athena Swan has shown to be hugely beneficial for the progression of women in senior decision-making roles. However, I argue that the main beneficiaries of Athena Swan have been white women. More recently, the ECU introduced the Race Equality Charter. The Race Equality Charter is a very important piece of legislation. Two years ago, 21 institutions applied for the Race Equality Charter Mark and only eight were awarded. The Race Equality Charter Mark works in a similar vein to Athena Swan, but its main focus is on race. Again, institutions are awarded a Bronze Award in its early stages to examine how universities are doing for the progression of black minority ethnic students and also staff. These pieces of legislation are hugely important and show a significant shift in a positive move in the right direction. We've also had an increase in the numbers of black minority ethnic students attending higher education institutions. I am aware of the complexity and the controversy around the term because there are differences within and between different ethnic groups. However, despite significant advances and positive moves in policymaking, inequalities continue to persist for black and minority ethnic students and staff. But don't just take my word for it, let me show you the evidence. OK, so from the last census data, 14% of individuals make up the ethnic minority population. So in terms of student demographics, in the year 2014 and 15, 98.2% of UK students disclose their ethnicity. So when I talk about the differences within and between, you can see the numbers of students who are from different minority ethnic backgrounds. However, the proportion of students who have shown the significant increase have been black students. OK, so black students have shown the highest numbers in terms of attending higher education institutions. However, white students are more likely to receive a first or a 2-1 degree compared to any other BME students. So there's a BME attainment gap of 15.3 percentage points and this is the most recent data that we have available. Again, there's differences within the category because higher proportions of Chinese, Indian and mixed-race students receive a first. So again, it's the black students who are hugely disadvantaged despite them showing the significant increase in the numbers attending higher education institutions. So they are less likely to receive a 2-1 or a first. So when BME students are achieving good A-level grades compared to white students on average, there are differences within the category. They are still less likely to be able to apply to selective Russell group or Oxbridge universities. And when they do apply, they are less likely to be offered places compared to students who have comparable A-level grades from white backgrounds. So BME students are underrepresented in prestigious elite Russell group universities. So why is that? Well, we know that getting into a Russell group or an elite university isn't just about getting three A's or an AAB. It's about going for an interview and it's about having access to social and cultural capital which many white or BME working class students do not have. If only it was as easy as getting the grades. So, as I was saying, BME make up 14% of the minority ethnic population from the last census of those who declared their ethnicity. In terms of looking at the number of staff figures, it's really interesting because we have seen an increase in the numbers of UK BME individuals and the figures are there. And we've also seen an increase in non-UK BME staff so I think it's also really important to distinguish between UK and non-UK individuals because there are differences within that and I think there's evidence to suggest that that may actually change post Brexit. So amongst UK academic staff, BME comprise only 4.2% of those who are senior managers. How many BME vice-chances do you think there are in the whole of the UK out of approximately 152 universities? Oh, you of little faith. There's three. Come on, there's three. I can name them to you if you wish. So there's only three BME vice-chances in the whole of the UK out of about I think 152, 154 higher education institutions. The evidence also suggests that a higher proportion of UK and indeed non-UK BME staff are on fixed term contracts. So they are more likely to be on these contracts than white staff. They're underrepresented at the highest contract level and they're overrepresented at the lowest contract level and we only have 0.7% who are heads of institutions. A higher percentage of both UK and non-UK are on research only contracts compared with white staff and this contrast particularly in terms of high rates of white staff who are on teaching and research contracts and we know the importance of being on a teaching and a research contract for promotion and in terms of contribution to the research excellence framework. I thought it would be really interesting to give you some figures in terms of looking at the numbers of professors we have in the UK from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. Only 75 of our professors are black in the whole of the UK. I think that's pretty appalling actually. The majority are white, 92% of professors in the UK are from a white background, 3% are from an Asian background, 1.7% are from a Chinese background and I've given you those figures really because I thought that they were particularly shocking but also to compare them with the numbers of non-professors. So why is this? Why do we have such low figures in universities? We have an assumption that universities are liberal, progressive, forward thinking and are very much on the cutting edge of social justice and equity. There's huge amounts of evidence to show that this is not the case. There's processes of racism, exclusion and marginalisation that continue to exist in higher education both for staff and students. Lecturers tend to have, academics tend to have stereotypes of students with white middle class students seen as ideal pupils, Chinese students are seen as quiet and passive and black and Muslim students are seen as loud, challenging and aggressive. There's a huge amount of evidence to suggest that there are unconscious bias processes in higher education which continue to exist where there are expectations from students. Certain students from particular backgrounds and indeed staff. One of the things that I think is hugely interesting is in my previous institution I was sent various numbers of emails to do health and safety training and every time I got the emails I pressed delete. So I've sent another email because health and safety training is compulsory in universities everyone has to do it but unconscious bias training isn't compulsory in universities and I suggest to you that unconscious bias training at the very least should be mandatory for individuals sitting on interview panels and indeed promotion panels. So I want to talk about a piece of research that was funded by the equality challenge unit that we carried out two years ago and at the time there was anecdotal evidence and some evidence from the home office to suggest that individuals from certain ethnic groups were leaving the UK to go overseas to work because they were feeling dissatisfied with UK higher education institutions and these were the three aims that we were asked to look at in terms of the project itself. The desired destination from the home office evidence suggests that the US and Australia were considered to be the positive destinations from individuals living in the UK. However I think the findings of this research may well be different now given post Brexit and post Trump so I'd be really interested to probably do this again now. In terms of our methodology we sent a questionnaire survey distributed to all higher education institutions in the UK via the ECU. We analysed our data quantitatively using SPSS and nonparametric analysis. We also conducted 41 in depth interviews, case study interviews with individuals who lived in the UK who had previous overseas experience and some who were based overseas and we analysed our data by using a qualitative package. So in terms of the survey how many responses do you think we got? For those of you who don't know the study I think some of you may know it. 5, 10, 15, how many? 10. Come on you're very negative. We got 1,201 responses and I nearly did fall off my chair. I think I did fall off my chair. Okay so even somebody like me who's not very good on quants knows that if we had got 500 responses we would be able to run regression analysis, nonparametric analysis and make claims around generalisation. So we could say okay we had 500 responses. Never in my wildest dreams would I think we'd get 1,201 responses so I was absolutely delighted. So it gives more rigor if you like to our data in terms of our findings. And there's the distribution of the responses. One of the things that I'm particularly interested in and I'll be interested in your responses is that this last figure here where we only got 21% of our respondents were working in post 1992 universities compared to 74% who were working in traditional universities. So I was very disappointed about this and early on in the survey when we knew the numbers were very low in terms of our response rate we sent further reminders to individuals in post 1992 universities because I was very keen. My hunch is there's differences in terms of the types of universities that individuals attend so I was keen to run some parametric analysis on this data. And we were not very successful. I don't really don't know why so I'd be interested if anyone has any reasons for that. I mean one of my colleagues said that they could have been too busy teaching possibly so they didn't have time to fill in the survey. Another colleague who works in a 1992 university said that the ethical rigor that's applied to sending surveys on is very different. So that was very, very disappointing in terms of our responses but I don't know. So what did we find? Well we did find surprise surprise that beyond the academics were more likely to consider a move overseas in greater proportions than white academics but many also went on to reject the idea. The USA, again this might change post Brexit this was before post Trump and post just before Brexit and Trump. The USA was considered the most desired destination for black, Asian, white and mixed ethnicities Arab, Jewish, Hispanic, Latin and other they were more likely to consider a move to Europe. And the biggest deciding factor of whether individuals would leave was the offer of full-time permanent posts regardless of where it was. And we know that one of the ways in which higher education I think is able to manifest its power is by the introduction of zero hours contracts in which many academics are being hugely exploited. Which I think is pretty outrageous. OK, so our responses did talk about positive elements of working in the UK. One of course was because they had a full-time job. They said they had a good pension and they actually did say they were treated with equity. They did feel as though they were treated as an individual and there were equitable processes around diversity and social justice and policies that did actually do what they said they would do. They also talked about a cooperative working environment and one of the most important things that many of our respondents spoke about were family friendly policies. So some of the respondents, male and female said well actually higher education enables me to drop my children off at school and I can come back and pick them up. And also with the introduction of Athena Swan and certainly race equality charter, universities who are signed up to the charter do have to demonstrate with evidence that they have family friendly policies in place. So you can't hold meetings at certain times of the day etc. And you have to ensure that all the different areas are absolutely addressed. So universities are actually understanding the importance of these particular policies. And more recently I think it was about five years ago an announcement was made by RCUK that Athena Swan was going to be attached to funding. Now because of that the number of universities that signed up to Athena Swan significantly increased. So they said that if universities are not signed up to the charter mark we will not award you with funding. And my feeling is, although it's too early to tell because the race equality charter has only been introduced, that my feeling is that it will move in the same direction and so that will increase the numbers of universities that sign up to the charter mark. But you know whether that's a good thing to do for the money, we'll see. The push factors from the UK were also recruitment. Many of our respondents talked about the fact that they had to be twice as good as their white counterparts. So for example, if there was a white colleague who was doing the same thing, our respondents said particularly around performance management they had to be twice as good. They had to be producing more articles, bringing more money in etc etc. And in terms of how you got on in higher education, there was a lack of transparency, particularly in relation to promotion and progression. So we all know and you know some of us sit on promotion panels as I do, that there are specific criteria that are needed for promotion and individuals have to meet those criteria and indeed for interview panels. But quite often many of our respondents said that there was a lack of transparency. It's what I call a network of knowns. If you are white, not necessarily male actually, white from a certain background, you're more likely to have access to a network of knowns, it's who you know. So these individuals are able to give you the advice about which journals to publish in, which conferences to attend and they have access to networks that black and minority ethnic individuals from working class backgrounds do not necessarily have. So that hinders their chance of progression and indeed their future career trajectories and their social mobility in relation to movement in different universities and access to the labour market. So being a black minority ethnic individual was based also on this notion of invisibility. Many of our respondents said that they were not expected to be in the white space of the academy. The academy is a space that is reserved for white middle class, often males, where whiteness and white privilege predominates at all levels, particularly in relation to how one is seen. I myself have experienced this in terms of invisibility and our respondents talked about it, the ways in which you are mistaken to be somebody who is doing an admin job and nothing wrong with doing an admin job, not giving eye contact, totally ignored, etc. Many of our respondents talked about these microaggressions and the ways in our own study, we talk about the ways in which racism manifests itself through subtle, covert, nuanced ways. So unlike members of the Ku Klux Klan, my colleagues are not going to come and hit me over the head with a baseball bat and call me a racist name. They're much cleverer than that. The racism that operates in higher education is nuanced, it's subtle, it's covert, takes place through microaggressions. I wish they would do that, then I'd know where I stood. Well, in a kind of a weird way, as long as it didn't hurt. The push factors from the UK is that I'm trying to be funny like you. I'm not doing as well as being funny, but I'm trying. The push factors from the UK, excuse me, were, as I've said, barriers to promotion. And one of the things about higher education is many of our respondents said they came into higher education expecting it to be progressive and liberal and inclusive. And one of the ways they wanted to show that through the work and the passion that they had for their work was through being able to get promoted and being in a position of power to translate those ideas. I guess, as I am today, I have the opportunity to be able to share my work to a wide audience, different to my students, etc. So they felt, however, that their career hit the buffers. So there was almost a stop-gap, almost indeed what you could call shattering the glass ceiling. It couldn't go any further. And they felt for them, the prospects were very, very limited and particularly around promotion was seen as an illusion. I've just showed you the figures in terms of the numbers of BME professors that are black. So the statistics support this evidence. And again, that the lack of transparency, the fact that the criteria was nebulous, it moved, the goalposts moved depending upon who you were. So it was almost as though it was some of our respondents described it as an old boys network, an old boys club that continued to exist. The respondents talked about the feeling of being judged more harshly and there was different criteria that was introduced. Some, though not all of our respondents did work on race and ethnicity and social justice and inclusion. And this was seen as deficit because it was seen as personal research. Whereas if a white person was doing research on this, it was given credibility and it was seen as important. Whereas if I was doing it because I'm a woman from a minority ethnic background, my research isn't really that important. It's personal. It's what Calum thinks. So that was something that many of our respondents talked about. What was also interesting was some of the responses on the research excellence framework. Everybody knows what that is, yeah? Yeah. Some of our respondents said that the ref was a good thing because it neutralised ethnicity. So, for example, it doesn't matter what colour you are, what background you're from, as long as you can produce four or four star outputs, then you'll get through. Others, however, said that the ref was entirely subjective. Because some of our respondents were doing work in Africa or India and they were publishing in journals that were outside of the Western world in the US or the UK. So they felt as though their own publications would be judged harshly by ref panels. And we know that in the last ref there were, we did criticise the ref panels for being under representative in terms of the numbers of BME individuals and also the numbers of representations from post 1992 universities. And I believe, and I can only speak for, excuse me, the education ref panel, in the last round there was one ethnic minority person and I think there was more of a representation for post 1992. Universities. Excuse me. There is, however, recent evidence that's just been published by Hefki, which shows that in the last round of the ref, black and minority ethnic academics were less likely to be entered for the ref compared to their white colleagues. And Hefki have produced a breakdown, a statistical breakdown, and it's on their website if you're interested in it. So the academic factors were that individuals, and again I've talked about zero hours contracts and some of our respondents, though not all of them were on zero hours contracts, just actually wanted to work temporarily in the US or abroad and then come back because they felt that it would actually enable them to get work in the UK if they had greater experience. They also indicated specifically for the US that the US was considered a supportive environment for BME scholars and individuals said that in the US race had a complete, those working on race had a completely different history. But there were also all black universities and colleges and there were also degree courses that specifically focused on African studies. So the history of, I am aware that the history of black politics in the US is very different to the UK but this is what some of the respondents were actually telling us. They also felt that they would be treated as an equal intellectually because there was credibility and status given to BME staff. Many of our respondents talked about black academic elite, which existed in the US, which they said did not exist here in the UK. And there was also, as I've said, institutional space and support for black studies. And furthermore, specifically for the US and Australia, many of our respondents said that there was no assessment exercise in terms of an RAE or a REF, which has placed huge pressure on individuals. However, there was the notion that individuals had to fight for their tenure in the US. So there were different pressures and less of an administrative burden and furthermore, excuse me, the pay terms and conditions seemed better overseas than they were here in the UK. Ok, so quality of lifestyle, better opportunities for their family, which was considered an important factor for many of our respondents. The notion that they could buy a massive big house, which didn't cost as much as it did here in the UK, so their family and children would have better opportunities. The actual institutional culture was considered differently and one of the respondents said, in the US we go out to dinners together. There's always a sense of wanting to talk to everyone in the corridors and that culture is one that I value and I like. And one of the things that we argue in our research is that with the, I guess you call, I would call it the failure of neoliberalism policymaking in higher education, where we have this move towards performance management in universities, where individuals are judged by their ref outputs, by the NSS scores and quite often this is used for promotions or not and increases in salaries or not. So consequently, there is less of what we, less of collegiality and many of our respondents felt that in the US this was not the case because of the way in which the structure of higher education institutions work in the US. And you know better weather, who doesn't want to live in a sunny climate? I would love to live in a sunny climate. The opportunity to travel and also the opportunity to learn different languages. Many of our respondents from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, specifically from Africa, China and India, did actually say that they wanted to go back to the home of their ancestors. That their words are not mine in terms of giving something back to their own culture. Though many of them were born here in the UK but their ancestors had originated from Africa, China or India. And so they felt that they wanted to go back and give something back to their own communities and their ancestral homelands as they called it. So, how do we move forward in terms of the findings of our research? We have suggested various implementations for policy and when this report was published it did land on the desk of all the VCs in the UK because all of the institutions participated. So we had a duty and we wanted the VCs to know some of the things that we had found and these were some of the recommendations, though not all of them, they are listed more in the report. We suggest that we need greater visibility of BME staff in academic and decision making roles, senior decision making roles. So we don't just want a tick box exercise, here's our one ethnic minority, they need to be in decision making roles. So for example at Senate in committees that have power and that have an influence rather than just a tokenistic gesture. All institutions should be required to show transparency in their recruitment and progression processes. So we need to know how individuals are being shortlisted. So I think universities should be made to answer for why they have all white male shortlist. Let's have a look at the shortlisting criteria. Why is there not one woman, why is there not one BME individual on that shortlist? And I think universities need to answer to that and let us know why that isn't the case. I mean we were talking earlier about I've been to conferences and I've been in the audience and there's been an all white male panel. Come on, was it that difficult? You couldn't find one woman, one white woman even? So I think that we need to think about representation very seriously. And following on from that we need institutional frameworks that facilitate change in higher education. At the school level, at the department level, at the faculty level and this needs to be transparent and it needs to be very clearly defined, described with outcomes. That's what's required for Athena Swan and the race equality charter. I've chaired those boards, those judging panels and I've been a judge for Athena Swan and race equality charter and everything has to be evident space. I think we should expect all universities to demonstrate how they're doing diversity. There are pockets of excellence, there's some universities doing very good things but there's also tick box exercises where universities are not doing diversity or they don't understand how to do it. So we need a specific recognition and valuing of diversity. So rather than asking people to fit into the white space and white privilege and whiteness of higher education, we need to acknowledge the richness of diversity and what that brings because aren't we supposed to be international? We need to celebrate what that means in terms of not just our staff representation because our students, we have a huge amount of diversity in our student population, at least not in the international profile and I've shown you the evidence there. But also in the curricula and how we teach it, how do we teach about Britishness? What does Britishness mean? How do we teach about colonialism and imperialism and our past? We have to go back, that has to happen in primary schools and secondary schools and we need to stop apologising I think for the ways in which we do diversity and do it properly to move on. Some universities though not all have excellent networking and mentoring and training programmes that are formalised and they work very well but not all universities are required to have formal mentoring programmes in place and many do not. So we need to look at individuals who are applying for a promotion to senior levels and they need to be mentored and they need to be sent on training courses whether it's an Aurora programme or whether it's a specific programme in terms of knowing how to do an interview at a professorial level etc. So I think all universities should be required to do that and if they're not doing it they need to say why they're not doing it. All universities should monitor and review their staff profiles, they need to identify under and indeed overrepresentation at particular levels, positions and also types of contract. Who are you supporting, who are you employing and who are you promoting and why? Universities need to acknowledge and address institutional racism rather than sweeping under the carpet and we need to acknowledge and address other areas of disadvantage particularly around intersectionality and how this impacts in higher education not just for staff but also for our students. Okay and finally I couldn't really stand here and not talk about post truth, post Brexit and post Trump. So I wrote this last night so I'm going to read it so forgive me that I'm reading from just this one last page. This is my final slide. So I think the biggest risk post Brexit to higher education is an attack on a social justice agenda. We know that Brexit was based on a discourse that blamed the other and the outsider and we know that immigration and fear of the other was used as a main reason for championing Brexit. But I would suggest that this discourse is not only wrong but it seriously threatens the sustainability and future of higher education as being an agent of change because that's what I believe higher education is. That's what I believe my role is, is to be active as an agent of change specifically in relation to the relationships I have with students. So I suggest that we as educators have a moral responsibility to question and challenge what Brexit and Trump means for education. Particularly in relation to our funding priorities, a competitive research market and also the future viability and sustainability of higher education. I suggest to you that we are confronted with serious complexities in a very fluid and unpredictable political and social climate, not only at home but also internationally. And this climate is marred by risk, insecurity and fragility. And I argue that as educators we must stand firm in our fight to advocate the richness that diversity and internationalisation brings to our education system. And I argue that it's a strength rather than a weakness. As academics and as individuals who work in higher education institutions, we must continue to fight for an educational agenda that centres social justice as our mission, that centres inclusion and diversity as our mission. And I suggest to you that we should refute the claim from our Prime Minister that if you believe you are a citizen of the world you are a citizen of nowhere. Thank you.