I'd think Palmer might do himself a favour by not banding accusations of racism about. It seems unreasonable, given what I've read, and on a purely practical level it immediately drowns out any reasonable discourse - as he's the head of the enquiry (inquiry?) if nothing else it should be in his interests.Slick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:17 am Interesting spat between Sir Geoff Palmer, Sir Tom Devine and Prof Jonathan Hearn.
For those that haven't seen it:
A row over Edinburgh’s links to slavery has led to the city’s oldest university being condemned for its “absolutely shameful and fatuous” response to allegations of racism made against two of its most respected academics.
Sir Tom Devine, emeritus professor of history, lambasted his former employer for failing to provide even “a hint of support” to either himself or Jonathan Hearn, a professor of historical sociology, after both were branded racists by Sir Geoff Palmer, the human rights campaigner and chancellor of Heriot-Watt University.
Devine said that Edinburgh University had failed in its duty of care to its staff and had “brazenly committed trahison des clercs [intellectual treason]”.
Palmer is leading two reviews of the city’s connections to slavery but his work was criticised by Hearn for failing to take account of “historical complexity” in the disputed legacy of Henry Dundas, the Georgian politician whose statue towers over St Andrew Square.
Palmer labelled Hearn a racist on Twitter and after Devine responded in The Times by condemning the “appalling slurs” against a colleague, he too was described as racist by Palmer.
Advertisement
Yesterday, Edinburgh University issued a statement: “We are committed to freedom of expression and academic freedom and stand by our published statement on protecting these freedoms,” it said.
“We will continue to listen to views on our principled approach, including respecting the right of individuals to challenge our community if they think certain behaviour impinges on the environment of mutual respect.” Devine said that he was deeply shocked by the statement.
“What an absolutely shameful and fatuous response from an institution which ought to have a duty of care for its staff,” he added.
“A professor and a professor emeritus have been publicly vilified, abused and described as racists by an individual who is currently chairing an important university inquiry into its historical links to slavery.
“And for what reason? Because they dared to offer alternative opinions based on their academic expertise and knowledge.
“On this day the senior management of Edinburgh brazenly committed trahison des clercs. There was no hint of support or even an inquiry into these disgraceful slurs, nothing other than supine platitudes.”
Devine had earlier called for Palmer’s dismissal, saying that he lacked the “qualities of impartiality, sensitive appreciation of different opinions and the capacity to encourage consensus and complex decisions” required as a review group chairman
Palmer said: “Devine’s biased, racist demand does not bother me. We are used to bias.”
Knighted for his human rights work in 2014, Palmer, 81, is a longstanding anti-racism campaigner. He came to Britain as a child from Jamaica and was the first black person appointed professor in Scotland when he was awarded the chair in grain sciences at Heriot-Watt university.
Under his leadership of the city council review group, a sign has been placed under Dundas’s monument, which states that he was responsible for delaying the passing of legislation to abolish slavery.
Hearn said the review group had also highlighted the 1774 case of Joseph Knight, a former slave whose victory in the Court of Session established the principle that Scots law would not uphold the institution of slavery in Scotland.
The group had failed to mention that Dundas had been Knight’s lawyer, Hearn added.
“History is rarely a resolved business,” he said. “It is full of ambiguities and ongoing debates that need to be acknowledged and engaged. What should be avoided is reducing the complexity of history.”
Palmer said that the Knight case came to court when he was no longer a slave, but a servant of Sir John Wedderburn of Ballendean.
He said: “They are trying to compare Knight’s release from ‘perpetual servitude’ with Wilberforce’s abolition of slavery [in 1833], it's nonsense.
The mayor of Bristol refused to be drawn into arguments like this, notably around the statue of Colston which was dumped into the Avon, as he just didn't want to waste political capital and goodwill on relatively symbolic arguments when he could be doing something practical. Better to avoid needless and highly charged confrontations, surely?
