Buckingham University and the Moral Compass

In October of last year, I wrote a post called 'A Moral Compass' in which I pondered the issue of  the Internationalisation agenda for universities, and the issues that come for our own values as part of that.  I recounted the story of one HE manager walking away from a deal (not at my own University) and how this was both unusual and commendable.

This week however, the University of Buckingham (a private institution, and thus we are led to believe, are all about the bottom line) made headlines by walking away from a lucrative deal over the issue of gay rights.

GarStarNews reported: 'The University of Buckingham has announced it is ‘increasingly concerned’ about Uganda’s human rights record, and wanted the country’s Victoria University to include a clause that no person would be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. A statement said: ‘Over the last few months, the University of Buckingham has been in discussions with our partners, Edulink, who own Victoria University in Kampala, Uganda, about our continued validation of some of Victoria University’s courses. ‘We have both become increasingly concerned about the proposed legislation in Uganda on homosexuality and in particular the constraints on freedom of speech in this area.’ The University of Buckingham, as the UK's only private research and teaching college, will allow existing students to complete their studies on their validated courses in Dubai and Kenya.'

The BBC also reported on the story, and noted how it raised ethical issues for UK Universities.  Well, indeed.

200 hundred students were affected according to the BBC, and thus one can conclude we are potentially talking about a significant sum of income that Buckingham have wilfully denied themselves.   They deserve credit for arguing that students should not be discriminated against, when enrolled on their degrees and seeking to uphold the same values that a student studying on campus at Buckingham should experience.

How many other British HE congratulate themselves for having strong equality policies, but discard them when the harsh winds of economic reality bite? Will another UK university now seek to negotiate a deal with Victoria?  If a private provider can do this, the pressures on 'public sector universities' are surely now even greater?

A Moral Compass

The Times Higher carried an excellent piece this last week from Bruce Macfarlane of the University of Hong Kong.  He considered the rise of UK University campuses in various pasrt of the world - principally the Far East and the Middle East which may not necessarily share Western Academy 'values'.  He concluded:   'Clearly, UK universities are under pressure to be both business-facing and public-spirited. But in taking their brand to emerging markets, they need to be aware that they are trading off the essence of what it means to be a university. This is about more than profit: it is about being trusted as a critic and conscience of society.'

His thoughts very much chime with my own developing thinking in this area.   I was recently told by someone I regard as a reliable source, the story of a senior HE manager (at a different Uni to my own) who was recently sent on a recruitment/development visit to one of these markets.  The individual concerned was somewhat worried by what might be regarded as a 'culture clash', and commented that they would be rather unlikely to see people of the same sex walking hand-in-hand in that particular country.  The senior manager concerned walked away from a deal, apparently suggesting that this was not a people they wished to do business with.  Even allowing for some exaggeration, it's still a remarkable story.

HE managers are increasingly tasked with tapping in to these huge markets.  As a UK academic, I'm also all too aware that it is these international students that increasingly enable my salary to be paid each month.

Nonetheless, it's not just the overseas campuses that Macfarlane highlights which we should be concerned about.   Distance learning, and bringing international students 'on campus' (i.e to the UK) also raises questions about 'internationalisation'.  This should be a two-way street, but is often about positioning the UK product to be appealing internationally.  Goodbye Jiff, hello Ciff.

For law, this means less emphasis on human rights law (not a great seller in China or large sections of the Middle East), and more about commerce, trade and business law.  A subject like law and sexuality is simply not commercially viable for this audience.

What then for this subject?  Well, it means that it will be difficult for the subject to gain a massive influence amongst masters provision (except those courses which are designed for, and successfully attract home students) and will arguably also increase pressure on undergraduate module space as programmes are rationalised, and overheads trimmed.

Far from British education being sold internationally, there is something of a reverse flow going on when it comes to 'values'.  It is surely - as Macfarlane suggests - a key aspect of a UK legal education that certain values and debates are also transmitted - be it human rights, legal theory or sexuality, yet this debate about what I would call 'the soul' of law programmes is rarely discussed.

The big players of the legal education market -which like to think of themselves as bastions of liberal legal education values - are nowhere in this debate.  Moreover, I wonder how many academics believe that someone in their own institution would similarly walk away from a deal rather than embrace a homophobic or sexist regime?

Given a choice between employment and unemployment, I also know which one I will choose.  Yet, I can't help wondering whether I've been short-changed for my soul.

The Impact of X. v. Turkey: Homosexuality and the ECHR

Paul Johnson has written a compelling piece examining the first successful use of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human rights by a gay man.  Check it out in Jurist here.

Law, Culture and Queer Politics in Neoliberal Times

Jindal Global Law Review has published the first of a two volume special issue addressing 'Law, Culture and Queer Politics in Neoliberal Times'.  Check it out here.

I've not yet read the full issue, but heartily recommend an excellent article by Neil Cobb (latterly of Durham Law School, and now at Manchester University).  His article can be downloaded here.

Watch out for Part II of this special double issue due to be out in December 2012! It will, among others, address concerns around homonationalism, queer imperialism and pinkwashing with reflections on queer politics in Africa, Europe and North America. It will also address the politics around the representations and constructions of queer sexualities within familial contexts of intimacy. The issue will feature articles by Jasbir K. Puar, Neville Hoad, Jin Haritaworn, Dianne Otto, Fiona Campbell, Aeyal Gross, Marc Epprecht and many others.

Gay Olympic Athletes Should File Asylum Claims

Mark Stephens is Chair of the Board of Governors at the University of East London (UEL) and a high profile lawyer - well known for his various media appearances talking about erm, well, the media.

He caused a bit of a stir this week when he spoke at the increasingly thrusting and energetic UEL as part of their series of public lectures.  His talk was entitled:  'Rainbow Legacy: why we must assert the rights of the international LGBT community during the Olympic Games' and he suggested a very practical way that LGBT athletes could improve their own rights, and those of their countrymen as well as highlighting the issue of continued criminalisation of homosexuality in 84 participant countries.

He stated:  "I invite LGBT athletes who don’t feel safe to apply for asylum in this country on the grounds that you will face persecution at home if you are open about your sexual identity. The British Government will have to hear your application, and in doing so, they will have to engage with the human rights abuses perpetrated against the LGBT communities across the world."

Read more here.

Homosexuality and Constitutional Law

Simeon CR McIntosh, former Dean & Prof of Jurisprudence Faculty of Law, University of the West Indies has produced a fascinating piece on the constitutional debate in the West Indies about repealing their laws criminalising homosexuality. He concludes that 'I re-echo my agreement with Prime Minister Stuart, that he should not repeal the law criminalising homosexuality on the directive of the British or US government. Rather, he should repeal the law because it is the just thing to do.'

It's fascinating to see the arguments from a  jurisdiction in which law and the politics of religion are seemingly inseparable and constitutional law is deployed to defend traditional constructions of homosexuality as evil and thus behaviour that ought to be criminalised.

The full piece is well worth a read and can be viewed here.

Cleveland Leather Awareness Weekend

WolvesPervs blog carries a fascinating piece about Cleveland Leather Awareness Weekend (CLAW), an event I - and I suspect many others  - are not familiar with. He explains that: 'CLAW is a non-profit convention held in, as the name would suggest, Cleveland (Ohio, USA) every year for the past ten years, the 2012 event is the eleventh. CLAW 10 attracted over 1,250 people from 34 US States and Canada - it's not very well known outside the US Leather scene, hence I suspect the interest and curiosity in my attending.'

Interesting, he also explains it int elation to better known events such as International Mr Leather, Folsom, and the leather scene in the UK.  It's a compelling piece and although you'll have to go through the blogger 'adult warning', the page I'm sending you to (should) have nothing scary/naughty so you should be safe clicking through.

Hot Air American Style: International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons

Hillary Clinton is a busy woman and so I can only imagine the US Secretary of State was a) too busy to pre-read a speech she delivered this week in Geneva and b) the victim of her staff having a little fun.  Along with the White House she announced a commitment by America to the 'human rights' of LGBT people around the world - and a commitment to promote human rights issues in this area.  She also announced a new Global Equality Fund with $3 million in the kitty - and the hope other countries would chip in (the world is after all flush with cash).  For America, the $3 million figure is interesting - presumably Obama and Hillary had a root around the backs of official sofas for some small change, but the wider issue is of course America lecturing the world on LGBT rights - I mean really?

So, the question about whether Hilary actually knew what she was saying (surely she'd correct it or ask "hang on guys, this is for real?"was taken up by the media.  Via the wonders of open government, the teleconference briefing on the story was published on the US State Department website.  You can read it here.  One member of the media asked if Hilary had actually written the speech.  This was the punchy and clear response from officials:

Well, she has a terrific amount of input into all of her speeches, but this is a speech that is very much crafted in her voice and with her guidance and her intentions in mind. I mean, she knew when she was going to give the speech. She knew that, as she said in the speech, that it is a topic that is still sensitive for some, and she wanted to be aware of that, sensitive to that, respectful of that. As she said in the speech, she wanted to give people a chance to raise what they were concerned about, afraid about, et cetera. And yet it’s something on which she also said in her speech over time – over the course of her life, her own sensitivities and convictions have deepened. And so I think, as I said at the outset, the speech was – because of her guidance and because of the work that she did on the speech, she worked through multiple drafts and makes edits and captures exactly what kind of tone she wants and writes out paragraphs longhand, et cetera. And I think in doing that, she really – she very purposefully made it both firmly principled and also unimpeachably respectful. And I think in that respect, it reflects her broader vision and her leadership in this area.

Hmm! The full speech can be viewed here and watched below:




It is of course to be welcomed that America broadly takes this approach but perhaps their speech and political efforts should be focused inwardly as well as externally.   Moreover, careful reading of the speech will reveal an administration balancing freedom of religion with sexuality and a focus upon ensuring LGBT people are not criminalised,a rested and physically injured.  It avoids the tough questions of same-sex marriage, employment protections, goods and services rights, adoption and fertility rights, medical access for those seeking to transition and so on.

This failure -and that's what it is - enables countries such as Nigeria to dismiss these calls, and the whole speech to amount to nothing more than vacuous remarks.

The US administration also issued a Presidential Memorandum - quite literally a note from the boss to government agencies.  That memo applied to the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, the United States Trade Representative, and such other agencies as the President may designate.

It made a series of specific directions to agencies, requiring them to:

• Combat the criminalization of LGBT status or conduct abroad.
• Protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers.
• Leverage foreign assistance to protect human rights and advance nondiscrimination.
• Ensure swift and meaningful U.S. responses to human rights abuses of LGBT persons abroad.
• Engage International Organizations in the fight against LGBT discrimination.
• Report on progress.

The memorandum is worth reading in full which you can do here, and although it received less attention in the media, it is equally vacuous.  America, this isn't good enough.