As reported in the Telegraph, University College London (UCL) has now launched an investigation into its decision to ban academic and FSU member Michelle Shipworth from teaching a “provocative” course involving China in order to protect its commercial interests.
Michelle, an associate professor at the prestigious Russell Group institution, was prevented from teaching her course, and blocked from accessing internal systems or even communicating with students, after a Chinese postgraduate complained that discussing modern slavery in China during an MSc course seminar was too “provocative”. Incredibly, UCL sided with students who said they were “distressed” by her handling of the topic, and imposed a raft of restrictions on Michelle in order to ensure their courses remained “commercially viable” to Chinese students.
The FSU’s case team has been advising Michelle since October on challenging these restrictions internally. Earlier this week, our General Secretary, Toby Young, also wrote to UCL’s Provost, Dr Michael Spence AC, asking for his personal oversight of this case and reassurance that all restrictions on Michelle will be lifted. In his letter, Toby also warned that future infringements of academic freedom would be referred to the higher education regulator, the Office for Students, once the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act comes fully into force.
In a statement issued on Saturday evening, UCL said: “While it would not be appropriate to comment on individual cases, the issues raised in this article are clearly concerning and we are working to establish what has happened.”
That’s encouraging news – but Michelle should never have been put in this position.
FSU Director Dr Ben Jones spoke to Michelle about her ordeal, and the shocking extent to which UCL has now curtailed her academic freedom – the full interview is available below.
Michelle Shipworth is an Associate Professor at UCL’s Bartlett School of Environment, Energy and Resources, and has taught at the institution since 2009.
Michelle found herself under investigation after a seminar last October examining data from the Global Slavery Index 2014. The seminar forms part of her ‘Data Detectives’ training module, and is designed to prepare students for an assignment which external examiners have described as “particularly innovative” and “excellent”, and her Faculty’s teaching lead has previously stated is worthy of a teaching award.
The data Michelle used during the seminar was in fact incidental to the analytic task at hand, but claimed China had the second-highest prevalence of modern slavery in the world. Working in small groups, students were asked to discuss the question “why are there so many slaves in China?” to build their data assessment skills.
On this occasion, however, a Chinese student angrily objected to the question as “provocative”. The next day the first of an unspecified number of complaints was made against our member on the basis that students felt “distressed” by the question. Further student complaints were made in November of last year, and at the start of this year members of academic staff complained anonymously via the university’s ‘Report + Support’ portal about supposed anti-China bias on Michelle’s part.
As a result, her communication access to students was suspended and she was locked out of UCL’s internal learning hub, called Moodle, for her next seminar. In a subsequent email, a senior manager told her that: “While we respect your academic freedom to teach to promote critical thinking, the […] teaching teams are really worried about how the students have taken this and it’s important to respond to their concerns. Focusing on just one country and using a topic that is currently geopolitically controversial is a sensitive subject.”
Another senior colleague told her: “I would not take away as the key point here any restriction on academic freedom … But we still need to address those students that found the way the question was phrased to be too controversial and difficult for them to understand. I would ask you to reflect again on how Chinese students in the current global debate would perceive such a question.”
Tellingly, when Michelle invoked J.S. Mill in defence of academic enquiry, the manager replied: “I have no idea who J.S. Mill is.”
We are concerned by the response of university managers to these spurious complaints, and by the restrictions placed on Michelle. She has been instructed by her department to:
- “not use teaching case studies or examples that only focus on one country”;
- heed university guidance on being reported for a “bullying” claim;
- “find different ways of encouraging Chinese students – perhaps with weaker English language skills and/or from a prior education environment that does not promote robust discussion – to engage more fully, openly and critically in class and assignments…using China as a topic of discussion seems to be contributing to the perception of bias instead of engaging students positively”;
- “consider not (re)posting on social media educational issues about only one country”, and;
- be “mindful of students’ ability to be very critical on some topics – for example if this would impact their future careers or if they think that this may be the case”.
She has also been told that another member of staff will be taking over her module.
These restrictions were put in place on the basis that “in order to be commercially viable, our MSc courses need to retain a good reputation amongst future Chinese applicants”.
Ms Shipworth told the Telegraph she “was suicidal” after being subjected to these restrictions on her teaching, academic freedom and use of social media on the basis of a class she had taught without any previous known complaint for a decade.
“I feel I have no choice but to make this matter public in order to expose the extent to which UK higher education is conceding to the censorship demands of some Chinese students,” she added.
We are concerned by the undue deference displayed in the correspondence we have seen towards the feelings of some Chinese students, and the placing of those concerns over and above Michelle’s rights to academic freedom and freedom of speech.
We are also concerned by the lack of due process. The restrictions that were imposed on Michelle did not come about as the result of a disciplinary process, but were introduced informally, and therefore improperly, and represent an unjustifiable infringement on Michelle’s right to academic freedom.
There can be no basis for them, no defence of them. Michelle has the right to academic freedom, to freedom of speech, and we will defend that right.
