Codes and Exclusions

A couple of months back I noticed that Armando Iannucci had started another series of podcasts with The New Stateman. The clear through line in the first two (available here and here) is about how systems we create establish barriers that mean that spaces are (intentionally or unintentionally) inaccessible for people from particular backgrounds. And I'm not talking about physical accessibility. I'm talking about accessibility on the basis of class or privilege.

In their book “The Class Ceiling”, Sam Friedman and Daniel Laurison reference “behavioural codes and implicit ‘rules of the game’ required to successfully navigate” particular situations or contexts - where understanding and knowledge gained through cultural capital means that you can more easily integrate into that environment.

It's very difficult not to come across as a bit of a class warrior when you start talking about this kind of thing. But its also quite difficult at the moment to not feel that we are living inside a political system that signals both covertly and overtly that societal hierarchies need to be maintained - even if they are fundamentally problematic and create challenges for our social institutions. The growth in food bank numbers, the increase in disclosure and diagnosis of mental ill health, the ever increasing wealth disparity - there are so many red lights that are flashing on the dashboard that our current government seems not only to be ignoring and instead actively making interventions to exacerbate the issues.

What does this mean in terms of Universities specifically though? What are the messages that staff that support students need to be aware of?

Well, the first is to recognise that it exists and that it has an impact on students who are entering higher education. To some this is obvious but to others, particularly those who have not personally experienced the difficulties or who have benefitted from the advantages that society has bestowed upon certain groups, it is not just hidden but can also be a cause of resistance.

As part of this recognition we need to get comfortable with discomfort. To recognise those privileges that have helped us personally. That's difficult because it can cause you to question your own value - something which is even more acutely difficult if you have underlying insecurity or unaddressed mental health concerns. And its obvious - no-one wants to think that they've only got to where they are because of some personal characteristics that were bestowed on them by quirk of birth. The dismissal or resistance to the idea of privilege appears to have some origin in that sense that the person highlighting the existence of privilege is not acknowledging the work that the individual has done and the individual effort that they have put into getting where they are. And that's not true. Regardless of your thoughts about the role that privilege plays and some of the people in our culture who have most obviously benefitted from it, it has to be acknowledged that individuals do need to make some effort - they don't all just simply rise to the top whilst spending 24 hours prostrate on chaise longues.

The better analogy might be to say that privilege is an amplifier. Good singers are good singers but there's a difference between the person who is singing on their own without a microphone and the person who has a PA system that would fill Wembley Stadium. In The Class Ceiling, Friedman and Laurison describe it as a “following wind” and there is remarkable insight from the interviewee that recognises the advantages that have helped them on their journey.

(Image: https://twitter.com/J_Bloodworth)

I have previously been pulled up for implying that if you come to university from a private school background then you automatically succeed. And that's fair because everyone can equally make a mess of things if they try hard enough. It's more that if you have those advantages then you have both a greater chance of success and a lesser chance of obstruction. Its not impossible to mess it up with all of those advantages - its just more difficult to struggle to achieve than it is if you don't have those advantages.

We have to acknowledge at some point that our systems have been built in the main by the winners within our systems. Those who benefit from the structures rise to the top of them. And because they've succeeded they can't see why things would need to change. "If I've done it, why can't everyone else?" But just because Alan Sugar made it from a market trader to a millionaire doesn’t mean that every market trader will naturally become a millionaire. We notice working class academics more precisely because they tend to be outliers within their institutions. And their experience within these institutions as outlined in this article should give us real pause for thought.

At times it feels like Universities as a sector haven’t fully grasped that the student body of 30 years ago is not the student body we’ve got now. This has been recognised in the States and whilst I can see signs of change, when you’re working in some Universities it can still feel like they are still geared towards the stereotypical “student” audience - a middle class, white kid who went to a private school or a good grammar. And of course they're here - they've always been here and they always will be here. And so they should be. It's not their fault that they were born into a life of privilege. They have as much right as every other person in society to have a higher education experience and a rich and fulfilling life.

And its not about saying those people shouldn't be part of the leadership of our institutions - both universities and other social institutions, be they the government, health organisations, legal firms, businesses, etc, etc. The point is that they shouldn't dominate them. And in some areas, as the data in The Class Ceiling shows, they do. (For example, note where Academia sits in this league table of percentage by class origin group):

You could say that this will change as some of the more diverse students we’ve seen developing through institutions move from the student body into the University workforce and become those sector leaders of tomorrow, but I don’t think leaving it to naturally evolve will be enough - particularly if we don’t push back against those forces that want to maintain the status quo of entrenched advantage for already privileged groups. The denial of the need for this response and the pretence that we lived in a meritocratic society feels like its more visible than ever in the reactions to some to increasing support for equality and diversity initiatives. In a recent article in the Daily Mail, Andrew Neil wrote:

“The age-old idea that jobs, position and promotion are best allocated solely on merit and ability, regardless of background, is withering on the vine, replaced by a new religion — almost a fanaticism — that elevates diversity and inclusion above all else.”

The problem with this belief is that “age-old idea” has never been true in practice. As The Class Ceiling demonstrates, codes and exclusions are at play that will always mean that the more privileged get a better crack of the whip.

Meritocracy and talent are brilliant concepts when we can be assured that all people are taking part on a level playing field. But we know they aren’t. Why pretend unless it is to maintain the status quo and the entrenchment of advantage through privilege?

Organic change is not sufficient - you can see that when you look at the pipelines for black and female academics. You can see it in the class pay disparity across industries.

It’s why things like the former Higher Education Secretary’s recent intervention with regard to the Race Equality Charter are so disappointing. It demonstrates a tone deafness to the realities of the university experience for a lot of students and makes it easy for people to say that the government is just interested in defending the rights and privileges of those who already have all of the advantages walking through the door. You can argue that the government's social mobility tsar has been unfairly treated by headlines like these, but you should also question why a paper like The Daily Mail might want to frame their comments in such a way beyond clickbaiting and why their readers might be happy to have their news framed in such a manner.

The fact of the matter is things won't change unless we take positive actions to create institutional spaces that are accessible to all. And we need to do it together.

We can learn from the 10 ways to break the class ceiling that Friedman and Laurison outline at the end of their book - particularly in relation to the points about conversations about talent, taking intersectionality seriously, and supporting those who want support to develop.

But the best thing we can do to support our students is to recognise where we are putting in place informal and formal dominant behavioural codes and systems that act as barriers for full and true engagement, and then dissemble them so that everyone can thrive and so that some don’t self-eliminate. What are the much-loved traditions that are only actually much-loved by that small but substantial group who love them because it chimes with their prior experiences or cultural knowledge? It will vary from institution to institution but ask around and I’m sure you’ll quickly identify those things that, intentionally or inadvertently, are excluding some and ensuring that some continue to benefit from that “following wind”