A university lecturer has lost a racial discrimination claim after arguing that criticism of the tone of his emails amounted to a “racist micro-aggression”.
Dr Akali Omeni, a counter-terrorism researcher and former lecturer at the University of St Andrews, took the institution to an employment tribunal after a senior colleague advised him to be more “collegial and respectful” in email correspondence.
The tribunal dismissed his constructive dismissal and race discrimination claims, ruling that the feedback on his tone was a legitimate managerial response and not a racially motivated attack.
At the heart of Dr Omeni’s case was his claim that criticism of his email tone – in particular, a remark from a senior colleague that they “did not appreciate the tone” of his messages – amounted to tone policing, a term often used to describe the supposed suppression of ‘minoritised’ voices by focusing on delivery rather than substance.
Dr Omeni argued that this was a racial micro-aggression, citing the document “Tone Policing: When White People Are Uncomfortable, Black People Are Silenced.” He claimed similar incidents had occurred elsewhere in the UK when he sought workplace clarifications. He further contended that the university’s comments constituted ‘unwanted conduct’ — amounting to harassment under Section 26 of the Equality Act — due to the historical use of the word “tone” in relation to black people.
The concept of micro-aggressions – first popularised by American psychiatrist Chester Pierce in the 1970s – refers to subtle, often unintentional acts of discrimination that reinforce systemic biases. Examples include commenting on a Black colleague’s “articulate” speech (implying surprise) or dismissing racial concerns as “overreacting”. However, the term has since experienced ‘concept creep’, and now includes behaviours as trivial as sighing in frustration, raising an eyebrow, or rolling one’s eyes, all of which, according to some critical race theorists, can be perceived as undermining marginalised voices. Some have argued that tone policing can function as a micro-aggression when used to delegitimise complaints from historically ‘oppressed’ groups.
Despite these claims, the tribunal found no evidence that race was a factor in the university’s feedback. Instead, it ruled that Dr Omeni’s emails were objectively unprofessional and that the university’s response was within normal workplace expectations.
Dr Omeni joined St Andrews as a lecturer in the School of International Relations in 2020. Initially line-managed by Dr Timothy Wilson, he was later moved under Professor Phillips O’Brien, who was also the Head of School, following the integration of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (CSTPV) into the School of International Relations.
The dispute began when Dr Mathilde von Bülow, the university’s Director of Teaching, emailed Dr Omeni in February 2024 about his teaching duties for the upcoming year. She asked him to confirm that he was “happy” with the arrangements.
Dr Omeni took issue with the phrasing of her request, replying:
“You are explicitly asking me to confirm I am happy in a manner that vitiates the possibility that I am not. I refuse to do so and would prefer my teaching arrangements to remain precisely as they are – if my being ‘happy’ is either meaningful or is meant to be the supposed outcome of this exchange.”
He escalated the issue by raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest, noting Dr von Bülow’s relationship with his line manager, Prof O’Brien. Copying in an additional colleague, he wrote:
“As the conflict makes me uncomfortable, I have instead cc’d my former line manager as I would like someone else to be privy to these exchanges, regardless of where they lead.”
In response, Dr von Bülow referred the matter to Professor Fiona McCallum-Guiney, the university’s Deputy Head of School, for further handling.
Prof McCallum-Guiney addressed his concerns but also warned him about the tone of his emails, stating:
“Finally, I want to note that I did not appreciate the tone of your emails to the school’s [director of teaching].
“I encourage you to reflect upon your correspondence and whether it was apt from a senior member of the school to a colleague. The school is strongly committed to promoting a collegial and respectful environment and all colleagues expect to be treated in this way.”
It’s fair to say Dr Omeni didn’t take this lightly, responding:
“I do not appreciate your tone either. Matter of fact, I also ask you to reflect on your own tone and correspondence to me.”
In subsequent emails, he argued that focusing on his “tone” was problematic, stating:
“It seems I am expected to take a supplicatory, apologetic tone… Despite keeping the same neutral, professional tone, I was told that my tone isn’t acceptable.”
Dr Omeni resigned in March 2024, claiming he felt isolated and that his mental health had suffered as a result of his treatment. He then brought claims against the university, including constructive unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and harassment.
On the tone policing issue, Employment Judge Jacqueline McCluskey ruled that:
“We were satisfied that [Professor McCallum Guiney’s] use of the word ‘tone’ in an email to [Dr Omeni] and which was copied and pasted in an email to [Dr Omeni] by [Prof O’Brien] was not a racist micro-aggression.”
She added: “Looking at the context of why [Dr von Bülow] was emailing [Dr Omeni] and the words she had used, it did not appear to us, objectively, that [Dr Omeni] was communicating with [Dr von Bülow] politely or with decorum or that he was keeping a neutral, professional tone.”
The tribunal also concluded that the use of the word “tone” was not related to the protected characteristic of race for the purposes of constituting harassment, and no racial motivation – conscious or unconscious – could be inferred from the university’s handling of the matter.
Dr Omeni’s other claims of constructive unfair dismissal and race discrimination were also dismissed.
