It has recently been announced that the London Metropolitan University is considering a ban of alcohol in certain areas of the University, because one-fifth of the their students are Muslim, and of those, a majority are women. Professor Gillies calls it an issue of ‘cultural sensitivity’ to provide drink-free areas, adding that he is ‘not a great fan of alcohol on campuses’. I happen to agree. In a sense it is like the smoking ban, which was put forward for passive well-being. Those who don’t want to smoke shouldn’t have to be constantly exposed to it when they do not want to.
In the same way, the ban of alcohol in certain areas can apply for passive social comfort; those who do not want to drink or be surrounded by those who are should have a space where they can socialise without being subjected to it.
What I do not agree with is the way in which London Met has addressed this proposed ban. They call it an issue of ‘cultural sensitivity’, when in fact they are being culturally insensitive. To a minority which has not asked for it, it has become an uninvited voice; a voice which will only cause unnecessary and unwanted tensions between a minority and a majority. By stressing that the alcohol ban in certain areas is purely for one religious group, Prof Gillies has shown that he is willing to judge a religion as a stereotype, and is willing to use a stereotype as an excuse for introducing a scheme which will not be wanted by all. He has also caused a view that he is giving preferential treatment to a small group of people, looking out for their best interests rather than the entire student body. Instead of introducing the ban of alcohol in some areas, for anyone who doesn’t want to drink, he has stressed that it is purely for Muslims.
For the rest of the student body who do not drink, whether it be for their religion, such as other denominations of Christianity and the punk ‘Straight Edge’ subculture, or health reasons, their interests and wishes have been sidelined. It is only right to comment that they must feel as though the Vice Chancellor has forgotten them in order to give preferential treatment to the Muslim minority, for which the notion of drinking is only a small part of the Quran. In this country we have a belief that no special treatment should be given to anyone, as it can cause social apartheid. This is especially important in an institution such as a university, and the Vice Chancellor, as a voice for the students and someone who supposedly has their best issues in mind, should be aware of this.
The way in which he has handled the considered plan to the press can be seen as biased when looking out for the welfare of the student body. He has put forward a reason which addresses only one group, causing this minority at his University, to come under scrutiny by not only the press, who have sensationalised the plan, but their readers. Already one nationwide newspaper has received over 1500 comments on their article in the last 22 hours. Here are just a few of the most recent comments:
“Aliens should not be allowed to come in from outside and want things done their way. If Muslims want to live in a country without alcohol there is a perfectly serviceable departure lounge at Heathrow Airport.” – this has been ‘recommended’ by 10 people.
“The university experience is one which should involve expanding horizons. We should not narrow the experience because of the limited view of any religious community.”
“The focus of the article would have been better aimed at a general clampdown for the sake of everyone.” -‘recommended’ by three people.
This has caused a backlash of negative racial comments, aimed at the Muslim population of not just the University, but nationwide, with few comments actually addressing the real problem: the way the University has put forward the ban.
Overall, the University is using a minority as a political excuse in order to further their own agenda against alcohol, which will make them un-popular with a majority of their students regardless of their ethnicity. The Vice Chancellor and his colleagues who are contemplating this ban have taken a limited view instead of an objective one, on an otherwise simple idea; replace one or two bars of the dozen on campus, with a non-alcohol serving replacement a.k.a a café. Overall, it is the partisan view of the Vice Chancellor and his colleagues that should be examined, a view that has caused the alcohol ban to become a solely religious issue. A minority group are being used as a scapegoat for a decision which many people would benefit from.
This is actually a good article. Genuinely surprising. That’s it really. Nobody ever comments on articles to say they like them.
A good article, but the issue re the vice-chancellor’s statements are even more problematic than you suggest. Please see below the comment from the lecturers union at London Met:
1. London Met Uni has some 25,000+ students studying in over a dozen buildings – all of which have alcohol-free coffee bars/student areas, across two distinctly separate campus areas in North and East London, with only a single student bar at each campus (the only places that serve alcohol at the university).
2. There have been no complaints or demands from students directly or via the students union for alcohol to be either banned, or partially-banned, on campus.
3. Gillies is currently selling off large sections of the university estate, including ‘The Hub’ – the student union facility (inc student bar) at the City Campus. The VC’s comments need to be seen in that light – i.e., they are simply a convenient cover for reducing student social facilities.
4. The language adopted by the VC in this regard is extremely divisive and is already stoking tensions where none had previously existed between the multiplicity of London Met’s student constituencies. The fact that the EDL (English Defence League) and other extreme Right and fascist groups have latched on to this is a major concern.
5. If Gillies were serious about student welfare and wider social and cultural equality and fairness, why has he personally defended the following university management decisions:
i) direct links with the Uzbekistan regime – noted for the torture of its opponents (primarily Muslim incidentally), and forced sterilisation of woman (see this week’s BBC news report on the issue)
ii) cutting of most of the university’s student chaplaincy service – including the forced redundancy of the Imam;
iii) the drastic reduction in the opening hours of the Woman’s Library (down to only 1 day per week), and its eventual closure;
All of this is happening at a time of huge cuts to student courses/modules – including the majority of the ‘critical’ subjects – such as philosophy and history, and mass redundancies amongst staff – both academic and student service related.
At best, Gillies utterances are a crass example of the disconnect becoming more and more evident at London Met between university management and the staff and students they supposedly represent. At worst, it is a quite cynical attempt to stir-up a divisive atmosphere in order to deflect attention from the far more serious issue of the deliberate destruction of a once proud inner city ethnically mixed and vibrant modern university.
Mark Campbell – UCU Coordinating Committee (Chair)
Good article. Initially I disagreed but came round to the author’s side as I read on. Another potential problem is that the prohibition may generate a degree of animosity towards the Muslims in the area as a result of the Vice Chancellor’s singling them out as the reason for the ban.