Accusations of anti-Brexit bias at British universities have been all over the mainstream media in recent weeks, and it has led to a debate over the wider influence of leftist politics.
But are these institutions really awash with remainers and hard-left sympathisers? For anyone even remotely patriotic and thinking of going to university, this will be one of the burning questions. Here I recollect my own experience in academia which comes from what I would term to be a culturally conservative, pro-Brexit and anti-Islamisation stance.
In 2013 I began a History degree at a London university in my early twenties as a mature student. Having long turned my back on the mainstream media and chosen alternative platforms as a source of worthy content, I knew what to expect in terms of ideological bias from academia.
The university I attended was of a culturally Marxist, pro-Palestine, pro-migrant, and spurious anti-racism slant. Risible and absurd posters were sometimes on display. One featured various religious symbols in the body of the word ‘coexist’ which no doubt in the view of its creator served to emphasise multicultural harmony. What such left propaganda actually attempts to do is lazily absolve one from having to think about difference. An even more bizarre pamphlet I found on display by the office of the Student Union questioned whether female genital mutilation (FGM) should even be a crime. For those not aware, this is a barbaric and criminal act as set down by British law whereby a pre-pubescent girl has her clitoris removed with a scimitar. As you can probably ascertain by now, the Marxists controlled the social and aesthetic space. But what about the subject matter of my chosen course of study?
I studied the British Empire and British domestic history which went up to the present day. The latter module covered post-war immigration and multiculturalism. I volunteered to do the presentation for this topic at the beginning of the year, and the burden of this intellectual challenge in a left-wing environment hung over me for the whole module. The reason it was more challenging than it should have been was down to the huge bias revealed in the choice of readings students were given for the subject. These readings portrayed all legislation pertaining to immigration control as racist, without introducing a substantive counter argument. Beyond this, the thoughts and feelings of British people who expressed reservations at the outset of the multicultural epoch were presented as racist. The moral authority in what should, like all historical debates, have been a torrent of critical enquiry was presented as being with the incoming groups to any given country. This is consistent with how the left present the immigration issue generally today. The set readings gave me no leverage but I was prepared for some of the obvious pieces of propaganda, such as the portrayal of the arraignment of Ray Honeyford in the class readings which condemned him. Honeyford was harassed out of teaching in the 1980s for wanting to give Pakistani children in Bradford a British education and voicing his objection that children were not to be flown to Pakistan for weeks on end during term-time.
Before my presentation came the lecture on the subject. The lecturer, an esteemed academic, lambasted Enoch Powell without approaching the topic critically or pointing out the huge popular support he had following the furore of his 1968 speech where he warned of the dangers that he believed would follow from mass immigration. All opposition to immigration was conveniently categorised as “intolerance” and no legitimate means to avoid usurpation was propounded during the talk. To make myself clear, I am not saying that I am against all immigration or all immigrant groups, I am merely pointing out the gaping absence of objectivity that I experienced.
A week following this dispiriting lecture I delivered my presentation which, admittedly, wasn’t the smoothest. I managed to articulate that wanting to preserve a country in its traditional form may, just may, simply be conservative thinking and not racist, and tried to show there was more nuance to this subject than what was portrayed by those charged with teaching us. To this I was met with silence. The only minorities in the class seemed to concur with the view expressed in the readings of horrible white bastards.
When studying the British Empire, nowhere near enough was said about British ingenuity, the successful export of the common law or the Royal Navy’s efforts to abolish the slave trade, the hospitals our forefathers built or the education this country helped diffuse. There was also nothing presented in defence of the Civilising Mission Ideology, whether one agrees with it or not.
I would advocate for any current or prospective students fed up with the leftist monopoly to set up your own student groups and plan action based around important issues to find belonging. Do not make my mistake of emailing the hard-left Student Union requesting help to set up an English society as I did. You will get no reply – despite the fact universities openly promote Pakistani, Islamic, black and other student minority groups that preclude white English involvement.
In spite of the negative aspects of my experience, I would still encourage those of you who are thinking of going to university to do so. Most of the professor’s are polite and supportive on an individual level and you can always find your own sources to read, not the ones the institution sets for you. Given the state of academia, we have to be in it to change it – and we cannot change it by surrendering what should be a locus of free-thinking to those who serve to homogenise our thoughts towards internationalist and culturally Marxist positions.
Standing up for those without a voice in Britain