BME AT LSE: STUDENTS' UNION ENGAGEMENT PROJECT

0 downloads 402 Views 829KB Size Report
An exploratory data review and analysis using MSL, School and Union data, which allowed a better understanding of BME st
1

BME AT LSE: STUDENTS’ UNION ENGAGEMENT PROJECT 2014

2014

2

INTRODUCTION LSE has a high level of ethnic and international diversity, and the SU is a member-led organisation which exists to represent all LSE students. Targeting under-represented groups is a priority for the SU and a level of dissatisfaction of BME students in terms of engagement with the Union has been observed. 53% of students at LSE are BME, and this dissatisfaction and perceived lack of engagement suggested the need for targeted research into the subject matter. The SU, with the support of the Anti-Racism Officer, conducted the following research with the vision of better understanding BME students and their engagement with the Union, with a view to making recommendations if necessary.

From the findings, it is clear that the SU student executive team (Sabbatical Officers, Part-Time Officers), and therefore the SU overall, does not represent the student body in terms of ethnicity. This overall lack of representation is problematic because decisions risk being made and priorities being set based on the voice of an unrepresentative few. The findings also suggest that the SU is isolating large groups of students, who view the organisation as irrelevant and do not feel sufficiently supported. Participants strongly felt that as the institution responsible for representing the whole student body, the SU must facilitate better representation as well as improving the accessibility and inclusivity of both society-led and SU-led events.

Throughout the Lent Term 2014, 5 discussion groups were conducted with 29 students who defined as BME, to explore their engagement with the SU. The discussion groups covered themes ranging from democracy and representation, to societies and the AU. In addition, data from LSE and MSL were analysed to provide further information on the subject matter. These provided information about the membership breakdown in terms of ethnicity for societies, the AU and the media groups. It was beyond the scope of this project to analyse the membership data in depth. Data from the SU elections, however, were also taken into account. Blog posts were then written about each discussion group and the response on campus was analysed. As well as the input of the Anti-Racism Officer, a student advisory group was convened at the start of the research, which was consulted for all major decisions, to ensure the project remained as student-led as possible throughout.

From one perspective, the SU is already doing a handful of the tasks to varying extents that will lead to BME engagement improving. When compared to what NUS recommends in terms of improving their services around race and ethnicityi, LSESU is already implementing certain criteria. For example, monitoring and evaluating election data, having a variety of accessible events such as non-alcohol related activities, and providing some Equality & Diversity training to officers and staff. These factors could all be improved however, and entire gaps still remain in the SU’s strategy. As well as addressing issues relating solely to BME students, some of the recommendations will be transferable to different demographics of students. Since there is a valid and ongoing debate about which student group should be prioritised in order to reach equal and meaningful SU engagement, the following recommendations are a mixture of being BME-specific, and applicable to different demographics such as the other Liberation groups and under-represented groups.

2014

3 Recommendations summary table General

Representation and Liberation

Inclusivity and accessibility

Monitor and evaluate data related to under-represented groups

Strengthen training for the Sabbatical and Part-Time officers.

Raise awareness to prevent exclusion and inaccessibility.  Run a diversity campaign  Innovative society training

Increase staff knowledge on Equality and Diversity

Strengthen the relationship between the Sabbatical team and BME students and societies.

Create a diverse calendar of events through a mixture of SU-led initiatives and supporting existing studentled ones

Better support Part-Time officers and their work with students including targeted support for the new BME officer.

Targeted election support for BME students

2014

4

METHODOLOGY

Aim: To make recommendations for improving BME student engagement at LSE Students’ Union based on research findings. Methods overview A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was used in this project. The qualitative data comprised in-depth information gathered from face-to-face discussion groups. The quantitative data provided baseline measures of the student body in terms of representation and engagement. Although there are limitations to both – the qualitative side used a small sample of students and therefore subjectivity and generalisations must be taken into account, and the quantitative side did not acknowledge perceptions and opinions and risks oversimplifying the subject matter – this multipronged approach has nevertheless resulted in more holistic findings. METHODS TABLE Objectives and justification Objective To explore current BME student engagement with the Students’ Union. one 1. An exploratory data review and analysis using MSL, School and Union data, which allowed a better understanding of BME student engagement with the Union and comparisons with overall student engagement. 2. Initial student advisory group set themes for future discussion groups. This allowed the principal themes to be student-led. Key BME students already involved with the Union formed this group based on them having useful experience and knowledge to create relevant discussion topics and themes. 3. 5 student discussion groups. These discussion groups were organised around the topics and themes set in the initial student advisory group. This provided indepth knowledge surrounding students’ views and encouraged dialogue between students. 4. Early observations from student discussion groups were published on the SU Tumblr page to encourage further dialogue and debate amongst a higher proportion of the student body; and to appeal to students who are accustomed to online engagement. Both these factors made the project more inclusive.

Objective two

To explore needs and expectations for future BME student engagement with the Students’ Union. See above (points 2-4)

Objective three

To make recommendations for BME student engagement with the Students’ Union An analysis of themes and patterns in the data and findings was conducted to make practical recommendations. The recommendations are largely for the Engagement team, however where appropriate, other Union teams may be involved.

2014

5 Sampling strategy All students involved in this project self-defined as BME in order to ensure that the findings were representative of the target group. The term BME was chosen as opposed to Black (political not ethnic) due to initial consultation with students on the basis that it is a more inclusive term for Asian students. The student advisory group, based on accessibility and availability, was formed of those who already had contact with, or had relevant knowledge of the Union. Examples included the Anti-Racism Officer and members of student staff. For the discussion groups, purposive sampling (where students were chosen due to specific characteristics – in this case being BME and having some knowledge of the Union) and snowball sampling (where students recruit other students in their social networks who meet the project criteria) were used to take advantage of existing LSE networks. The process of recruiting students took place in consultation with appropriate staff members and executive student officers. It was intended that up to 40 students would take part and the total number was 29. Some students attended more than one discussion group. Participant table Gender Nationality Ethnicity PG/UG M British Bangladeshi UG M British Tamil PG M British Black African UG F Indian Asian UG M British, Nigerian Black African UG F Nigerian Black African UG F British Asian (Bengali + Indian) UG M British Black African UG M British Arab UG F British Bangladeshi UG F British mixed: Black-African/White UG M British Pakistani UG M British Bangladeshi UG F Irish Iraqi PG F British East African Asian UG F British Bangladeshi UG F American Chinese UG M Malaysian Chinese UG M Thai Asian UG F Canadian Indian PG F English Japanese UG F French Jewish UG M British Pakistani UG M Thai Thai UG F Singaporean Indian UG F Pakistani Pakistani UG F Kenyan Black African UG F British Black African UG F Pakistani Asian UG

2014

6

Data collection and quality analysis This project complies with the LSE’s Research Ethics Policy, including the use of full and informed consent and guaranteed anonymity. Every effort was made to reduce bias and ensure inclusive participation at every step. A topic guide was used for discussion groups to ensure that none of the themes pre-agreed with the advisory group were neglected. Discussion groups were recorded to contribute to accurate data analysis.

Quality assurance and ethical considerations Once the data were generated, they were cross-referenced to explore and identify themes and patterns. Findings were discussed with the advisory group, relevant stakeholders and through online blog posts to confirm consistency between the findings and students’ views. Where appropriate, findings have been compared to data from other Students’ Unions and NUS.

2014

7

FINDINGS

This section describes: the qualitative findings from the discussion groups and the response to the online summaries of them; and the quantitative findings about SU membership and elections.

naturally have high BME membership (known hereafter as BME-societies) and furthermore, these societies did not feel supported to the same extent as others. Overall, despite the acknowledgment of positive SU efforts to engage with certain groups of underrepresented students such as Chinese students, it was widely felt that decisions in the SU were made based on an underrepresentative group. Although there are nuances and the participants’ opinions are not homogenous, this has resulted in BME students not feeling equally supported and subsequently as though the SU was not a relevant or representative institution. Many suggestions were discussed and debated in terms of improving the situation with varying degrees of agreement. There was however, an overwhelming consensus that while it was up to individuals and societies to improve their own situation to some extent, the SU as the overarching member-led institution has a far greater responsibility to provide fairer structures through which students engage.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH The qualitative research highlights a number of issues. Some stem from the notion of Representation and Liberation (or lack of) and include the implications of: having an elected student Sabbatical team that does not represent the student demographic, yet guide the strategic direction of the SU; the lack of a Liberation group for BME students (during the project however, a motion was passed to bring in a BME Officer in the Michaelmas Term, 2014). Other issues were centred on Inclusivity and Accessibility within the SU: one example was (albeit with some exceptions) the impact of many clubs and societies not being seen as inclusive or accessible for BME students overall – drinking culture contributed heavily to this point; another example was access to and lack of integration between the central SU (and its resources) and many of the national, cultural and religious societies who

The quotations in the following tables highlight the principal points raised within the five discussion groups.

2014

8 Representation and Liberation

You have to start looking for votes somewhere so if you engage your minority ethnic students to get involved and start running, and if they can get societies involved, more concerns will arise, people’s manifestos will look more pluralistic and wider concerns will happen about four or five things that they have to talk about and who’s going to be backing them and things like that. Then because student politics is more pluralistic, and other societies are engaged, I think that can snowball so I think getting the right people to run, if we can encourage it, then that would be good because I think then naturally, the SU will start reflecting the student body.

What I would change about the media groups is, well obviously you want it to be more representative of BME students and the wider students but I think the content should be more representative of what’s going on on campus so like certain things that might be going on on campus that include the hacks might take up a lot of pages but the Islamic society could be doing the biggest thing they could be doing for the whole year and not a peep. But it’s probably a problem on our part as well, we’re not openly going out and spreading out what we’re doing.

The ACS had a culture show Ablaze and we have it every year, we asked the Beaver to post about it and gave them our poster and they posted about it fair enough but they found some random picture of a masquerade to put as the headline piece, like to accompany the piece and we just thought that was outrageous like we thought we’d given you the picture to use and you’ve just interpreted it with their way and gone the wrong way. So yeah that’s personal experience [of feeling under-represented].

First thing I think should happen is that we should have BME caucuses when it comes to elections. Like BME self-definition.

My one criticism would just be that when it comes to exec elections, it can sometimes be a popularity contest with the more desirable and popular roles and just judging from the people… I think a lot of the time there can be this perception that you sort of know who is going to run for SU elections and that there’s a kind of inner circle kind of thing and so in some ways, it can prevent people from getting involved in elections.

I think it’s fine [that] you can see the election as a summation of all you’ve done during your time at LSE so you know someone who has got involved in a lot of societies and other things in the SU would get to know more people and therefore have more chance of being elected and in a way, yeah it is a popularity contest but that’s what an election is.

I mean, some candidates for Liberation positions promise to have some kind of office hours for students who might have any problems and I think that should be a thing.

I guess one of the things would be applying it to community voting so like if Anti-Racism was a Liberation Officer like BME students Officer, then only BME students can vote whereas anyone can vote for the Anti-Racism Officer.

The BME position is to do with more structural changes, institutional changes, people having barriers that aren’t necessarily like direct forms of racism, it’s not people slurring abuse at you or anything like that it’s to do with barriers you face just because of your ethnicity like what I said about job applications and stuff like that.

I don’t mean policies, just literally people from different BME backgrounds coming together to talk about why it’s important we have representation.

2014

9 BME Societies Support

The Chinese society, I think ACS as well some of these societies act as a mini SU so like some students come there hoping, expecting that they can be taken in by that community and that forms part of their LSE life which is non-academic, certainly for the Islamic society, I can’t really speak for other brothers but I’m sure it is the case as well and it’s a BME thing because it’s not just a faith thing nor is it just a national thing…

[national, cultural and religious] societies don’t have any help from the SU at all, and that means that even though they have a lot of events going on, they don’t feel part of the SU because the SU doesn’t directly help their society. And that consequently means that they don’t feel part of the elections even if they have political interests, they don’t see the SU as a platform that they can identify with.

I think there is something fundamentally unattractive about the SU for some of these societies. I have a lot of friends who run for example ABACUS, the Hong Kong society and the Malaysian society but they’re British born so they fall into the ethnic minority bracket but I mean… they don’t even know or want to engage with the SU bubble which is of the same sort of people who are in it, the same sort of people running it, the same sort of people who have their inside jokes and I mean, they really don’t see it as inclusive. They don’t view it as a first port of call. The Malaysian soc for example, they had their biggest event on Saturday and I mean for them that’s a big deal and it was coordinated with all the other Malaysian societies in the UK and I mean if you asked the people in the SU if they know about it, no one does.

If you look at the events that a lot of the minority societies are doing, they are huge; like the Malaysian society, the Thai society, the ACS are putting in the entire team, the entire budget, but it shouldn’t necessarily be student-led, it should be incorporated into the SU because what will happen is the more efficient these societies become running as individual machines, they will pull away from the SU and then what will happen is we will no longer help the SU in making sure we ‘re represented because we are now doing it better on our own.

It’s flawed to try and get people from the Malaysian society to try and run in elections if all year round, they’ve seen the SU as an irrelevant organisation where they can function alone.

The point I was making is that based on their [BME societies’] role, and the amount they could do, and how much emphasis is based on it from a students’ perspective, I don’t think they get the support they need to fulfil that role if that makes sense.

If you look back at an example like Black Ascent, it’s actually an example where the SU…reached out to us…there was an element of professionalism…I think as individual societies, we continue to do the good work we’re doing but naturally infuse the SU into what we’re doing, and them helping out. I don’t think we need to do it on our own and them not help out. I agree with you about having a committee working under the sabb would probably help diversify the interest of the SU, but at the same time, I don’t buy the argument that you have to come from a certain ethnic group to understand or care about issues pertaining to the societies or people who identify with that ethnicity. BME societies have become very self-sustaining. So they don’t feel like they relate to the SU or don’t feel like they need any help from the SU.

2014

10 Accessibility and Inclusivity Awareness All these kind of non-national non-faith societies that are to do with issues based stuff like think tank, media, politics and things like that, it’s good that you can go to their events and you can gain some things from it but in terms of feeling like you’re part of that society, it personally didn’t work for me, it felt like it was all pre-decided who kind of gets involved in that kind of stuff.

I think that the SU can have training sessions for societies, society heads and captains to be aware of these issues about BME but also about LGBT and sexism and make a parallel.

I find for the sports societies, you have to get involved in that kind of [drinking] atmosphere when you’re not into that sort of thing. My personal experience is I wanted to get involved in Cricket society and one of the initiations was going out for some sort of drinking event and they said if you don’t drink, just bring a bottle of milk and I thought that was kind of ridiculous.

I have a very good friend who is Muslim and wanted to be part of the rugby team, he played rugby at school, but unfortunately…[LSE] is not primarily a sports school and not very sporty so the emphasis is on the drinking culture so they have weekly meet-ups or piss-ups or bar-crawls or whatever and then he just felt like he would turn up to training and he felt sidelined and not involved with the other players. So I honestly don’t know the solution because I know the society write-up is that it already says ‘you should not take part in initiations as it excludes’ but I mean it’s the atmosphere rather than the actual execution.

I put guest speakers and the themes of the forums or the talks that they have, they are quite Eurocentric and obviously now we have the situation of Ukraine and Russia but if we have something as broad as economics, next time we have an economics talk, there’s no reason why we can’t have someone from China, someone from Africa and someone from Latin America talking because obviously their economic growth is different, their experience is different.

LSE Politics society did a student panel earlier this year and all 7 of the panellists were white and there was only one woman on the panel and they were talking about religious freedom, immigration, all these kind of issues where you would think that at least one BME person. This is obviously just one event but there is this kind of feeling with events and the demographic of the SU executive and all sorts of other bodies where you don’t feel represented.

It’s not difficult to break in because they’re making it difficult, but on some level – culturally – you cannot identify with them. It’s not that they want to alienate you, it’s just that the cultural relevance isn’t there.

There’s an element of you not really wanting to speak up about it. For example, like an alcohol issue, like I don’t wanna be telling societies ‘you know, you cannot do your events in the pub’, who am I to say that? They do this consistently, I’m just the guy, I’m the outlier, who doesn’t want to do that kind of stuff so I just think, ‘you know what? Just leave it and wait for the next one that’s not in the pub’.

The Athletics trials should be promoted more by societies who have a large number of BME people because like the door closes at the beginning of the year and then it’s too late to get involved.

I think a small point is that if you’re not BME, you’re not aware of these issues…people just live in their own bubble about this stuff being prevalent at LSE…no-one is aware of these issues and I think we need to publically as a student body acknowledge this stuff. Not just the minorities need to be aware of this because I think we know this, but the whole student body needs to be aware of this.

2014

11 SU responsibility

It has to work both ways but I think I lot of the onus has to be on the SU.

…. Societies shouldn’t have a liaison officer but the people who are actually elected like Community and &Welfare and Activities & Development, it’s in their job descriptions to go out and find out what the biggest societies like the ACS and even the Finance Society and make connections. I mean it shouldn’t be so exclusive.

I think that approach works in some scenario like the WEareLSE to get more women on panels. Personally I think that if you do some kind of positive action in that sense is ok but having a token brown guy…

Because A&D is such a big thing and there’s so many societies to help… [what about] people who help under them, someone who helped with national societies, someone who did the politics, someone who did the visual arts and drama, someone who did the education and careers and then everyone would feel represented’

If we have a BME group, who speaks to him [AU President] and say you promised us you were going to do this that and the other, it’s so much easier to hold him to account and the things they did as opposed to an ad hoc basis. It makes us more institutionalised as a BME group in the SU

I guess the main thing is why not just try to make the societies and the SU closer so for example, I worked with ACS for Black Ascent but I could only do that because it was for Black History Month but I don’t see why we can’t do that for things that aren’t Liberation so for things like Ablaze or Discover Islam week or something.

It is really a job that the SU should be doing, to have a comprehensive and inclusive Freshers’ and if the mainstream Union is just going to have club nights, then that is going to exclude students. Then the societies that are doing what the SU should be doing should at least be getting some money or staff support or something.

I think the SU does try to do their best, the SU’s perception is trying to mix people up, I think it does try, like there was a Chinese New Year thing so there are instances where they do try and the Global Village that’s going on downstairs so in it’s own way, it does try and be more diversified and mix things up and people around. And yeah, be culturally sensitive.

I really agree with what you’re saying but I don’t think it should be dismissed that societies shouldn’t feel the need to have engagement officers and stuff because we are in our own societies and doing our own thing when it’s I the SU’s job description to reach out to people. It’s a shame that that [BME activity] has to occur in spite of the SU instead of with the SU. I think the SU has a duty to pursue it. It’s not to favour them [BME students] or give them a crutch…but I just think that small meetings like this throughout the term…and if it’s someone like A&D sitting down with the presidents or doing it in groups so one week with the national societies or with the sports. When you feel like the SU is sitting down with you and listening to your issues, the more you feel involved to come back.

2014

12 Each discussion group was summarised in a blog post (see appendix) on the SU website to open up the debate amongst the entire student body (as opposed to just those who self-defined as BME). As a result of the blog posts, there were three main outcomes: first, students contacted the AntiRacism Officer to discuss the findings and practical ways to move forward; secondly, the support for the introduction of a BME Officer resulted in a successful motion being passed; and thirdly, the discussion was continued in a number of articles in the SU newspaper, the Beaver. The debate that followed the blog posts suggested that overall (but by no means unanimously), students felt there were valid reasons for BME students to feel dissatisfied with their engagement with the SU. The responses to these posts were mixed. On one end of the spectrum, some Beaver articles simply disagreed that many clubs, societies and the media group were generally exclusive, and democracy unreflective of the diversity on campus: JJ:Recently, the SU was faced with the allegation of exclusiveness and inapproachability. As a self-identified BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) student and member of the media group, how do you respond to this? SB: I would disagree with that in regards to the media group. LooSE TV definitely has lots of international students. Our President is Chinese and probably self-identifies as BME. Although it’s incredibly problematic for a person of Chinese descent to self-identify as BME. Pulse is incredibly diverse as well. And with the Beaver, there were a diverse range of people writing for it even though they might not have been in the Ed Board. Sophie Beland interviewed by Josh Jinruang, March 2014

While it is true that the current [Beaver] editorial board is predominantly ‘white’ and ‘middle-class’, to acuse us of being ‘cliquey’ and exclusive’ seems more based on a perceived stereotype and less on reality. Ans while our members may have opinions on various issues, it has never been the case that we ever let that influence out editorial decision Hacks and BME: Identity Politics, March 2014

The hack community is sometimes criticised for being insular, removed from the concerns of the average student. I would point to their campaigning over the past week on Houghton Street as evidence that this is not the case Alistair Hughes, Who’d have thunk it? Paying homage to hacks, March 2014

At the other end of the spectrum, articles were supportive of the project’s findings in general and either identified with the need to challenge the under-representation of BME students and lack of diversity in the SU’s democratic processes or agreed that there were problematic characteristics or perceptions associated with clubs, societies and the media group, which created specific challenges for BME integration:

2014

13

The media group recently come under criticism as being “white” “middle class” and “hacky” and I think it’s possible that people may feel intimidated in approaching us to write. I feel that people would be a lot less intimidated if they knew who was actually replying to them from behind the curtain of the [email protected] email account; this girl sitting in her pyjamas, writing three different drafts of the same message to make sure it doesn’t come off as too rude or demanding. We are really not as cliquey as people may perceive us to be, and perhaps inclusion is something that we, the editorial board, need to work on next year. Sophie Donszelmann, All these things that I’ve Done-szelmann, March, 2014

The analysis and conclusions put forward by the third discussion group of the BME project are worth mentioning here. Whist agreeing with all the positive outcomes that these elections contribute towards, like raising awareness on issues faced by us and coming up with a framework under which these issues are to be tackled with, I heartily believe that there is a need to address the issue of why some international students who work just as hard in societies etc, are not winning. Tooba Mushtaq, Getting to Grips With Student Politics, March 2014

The recent BME at LSE engagement group showed that self-defining BME students found our Students’ Union to be “cliquey”, “white” and “middle-class”, and SU elections to be dominated by “hacky inner-circles”. The BME Officer would work to make our Students’ Union more inclusive, and ensure that concerns such as those brought up in the self-defining focus groups are at the heart of decisions made by the SU executive Rayhan Uddin, LSESU needs a BME Officer, March 2014

While around two-thirds of the LSE student population are international students, most people who are in engaged in SU politics, UGMs and SU elections are not international students. This lack of diversity reduces the legitimacy of student democracy and makes politics less vibrant. Kabu Senapitak, Who’s afraid of the UGM, March, 2014

The perceived dominance of the hacks is also deeply concerning for representation and inclusivity I our student union positions and the media group. The hacks are hardly a diverse club. Not a single woman comes to mind who would define themselves as a one. Moreover, the most recent BME discussion group report on engagement reflected a perception that SU elections are dominated by an –in group’ which can put potential candidates off. As such, the pervading hack culture is damaging to the quality of our SU politics both in discourse and practice’ Katie Budd, Hit the Road ‘Hack’, March 2014

The SU should also mean inclusion. We have so many different communities co=-existing with each other at the LSE, but which are not integrated into the main SU. The BME consultation which is happening at the moment pinpoints so may problems affecting engagement, not only for BME students, but for those who do not fall into the hack minority’ Nona Buckley-Irvine, I make this promise to you, March 2014

2014

14 QUANTITATIVE DATA At the time the data was obtained from LSE (Michaelmas Term, 2013), it was not complete and around 1000 students are missing from the overall figures. Within the total figure from the LSE data – 10589 – there were 448 students whose data was not usable due to either refusing to give the data or leaving the questions blank. The overall sample used in the analysis was 10141. The quantitative data showed that with regard to the AU and Media Groups, compared to the 53% of BME students at LSE, 47% of students in the AU and 46% of the Media Group are BME – this illustrates that the AU and media group membership percentage for BME students is below the average BME student percentage. In comparison to the 53% of BME students at LSE, 54% of students in societies are BME suggesting that there is not a problem with BME participation in societies in general.

BME Non-BME Total

Total student body # % 5327 53 4814 47 10141 100

Societies # 2921 2524 5445

AU %

54 46 100

# 792 903 1695

Media Groups # % 213 46 247 54 460 100

% 47 53 100

The question is however, which societies are they in? The above data does not show which societies BME students are in. It was beyond this project’s remit to cross reference every society with ethnicity because of the time constraints involved (to do this was not simple as MSL does not hold data about ethnicity which meant that all data had to be cross referenced with the LSE data). A high membership of BME students in the African and Caribbean society would not be surprising but would skew overall figures. According to the discussion groups, BME engagement is high in the respective national, cultural and religious societies, but in societies that do not naturally lend themselves to a particular demographic, a greater disparity is perceived to exist. With this in mind, the student advisory group suggested looking into the specific membership of political societies (Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats) and RAG as case studies of non-BME societies. These data show that compared to the 53% of BME students at LSE, 30% of students in the Conservative society, 22% in the Labour society, 47% in the Liberal Democrats society, and 52% in RAG, are BME. These figures suggest BME membership in the political parties is not proportional, although RAG is proportional in terms of the overall society membership. The overall number of members are, however, relatively low for the political societies.

BME Non-BME Total

Total student body # % 5327 53 4814 47 10141 100

Conservatives # 34 79 113

% 30 70 100

2014

Labour # 30 108 138

% 22 78 100

LibDems # 28 31 59

% 47 53 100

RAG # 474 459 493

% 51 49 100

15 During the research period, the Lent Term elections took place and the lack of ethnic diversity of the successful candidates reflected the concerns raised in the discussion groups: out of 25 positions, 7 were BME (3 withheld their ethnicity).

Position 1. General Secretary

Nationality/ Ethnicity White British

2. Education Officer 3. Activities & Development Officer 4. Community & Welfare Officer 5. Anti-Racism Officer 6. International Students’ Officer and Trustee Board 7.Ethics & Environment Officer 8.Disabled Students’ Officer 9.LGBT Students’ Officer 10.Women’s Officer 11.RAG President 12.AU President 13.Trustee Board 14.Trustee Board 15.Trustee Board 16.Democracy Committee 17.Democracy Committee 18.Democracy Committee 19.Democracy Committee 20.Democracy Committee 21.AU Exec 22.AU Exec 23.AU Exec 24.AU Exec 25.AU Exec

British, info refused White British White Danish French, info refused White, Asian Canadian Arab, British White, Asian British Chinese, Hong Kong White British White British White British Asian, Thai British, Asian Norwegian, info refused Asian –Bangladeshi, British White Irish White Greek White British White British White British White British White British White British White British

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS 1. 2. 3. 4.

There is a lack of representation in the SU. The SU does not support BME societies and students sufficiently. There is a lack of awareness amongst the student body about accessibility and inclusivity. It is the SU’s responsibility to improve engagement with BME students.

2014

16

DISCUSSION

In order to make clear recommendations for improved BME engagement with the SU, this section considers the main objectives of the project - to explore current BME student engagement with the Students’ Union and to explore needs and expectations for future BME student engagement with the Students’ Union – in conjunction with the main findings. The broader HE context will also be referred to.

decisions made by the SU executive. Just as women, LGBT students and disabled students are able to take control of their own Liberation campaigns, BME students should be able to do the same. ii Students have expressed concerns and confusion about having a BME Officer as well as an Anti-Racism Officer, but not only are the remits different (the former position focuses on tackling structural barriers proactively and the latter’s priority is to respond to and raise awareness about racism), but the Liberation position also requires self-definition, which is an essential component of tackling underrepresentation. While it is likely that members of the executive including the Anti-Racism Officer will be supportive of and overlap with the BME Liberation agenda, they are under no constitutional obligation to do so and it is too risky and naïve to assume these issues will be covered. Students stressed that BME students are no different to the students in other Liberation groups and should be setting their own agenda.

REPRESENTATION AND LIBERATION The SU does not represent the student body in terms of ethnicity. This can be seen in the make-up of the executive team and in turnout to other democratic functions such as UGMs. The election data confirm the strong feelings of under-representation communicated in the discussion groups. Under-representation has also been felt with regard to the student media, but this will be discussed in more detail in another section. One method of facilitating equal engagement in member-led organisation is to have a selfdefining officer in Liberation groups. The support for a BME Liberation Officer and the successful campaign to pass the motion illustrates the student dissatisfaction with the levels of representation as it currently stands. As the current Anti-Racism Officer, Rayhan Uddin states in his argument for a BME Officer,

Another way of achieving a more equal level of engagement is through SU elections, which are integral to reaching true representation. For example, providing some BME-only support sessions, as the SU does for women candidates, or encouraging all candidates to run on issues that appeal to a more diverse range of students. They are however, just a symbol of the wider strategy and direction of the SU. If the SU is not fulfilling its role throughout the year (via every team and department), it is not logical or realistic to expect elections to be representative. For example, if SU is not meeting needs for

The BME Officer would work to make our Students’ Union more inclusive, and ensure that concerns such as those brought up in the self-defining focus groups are at the heart of

2014

17 international and BME students, this will have a knock-on effect on elections. The overlap between international and BME students has been referred to throughout the report as the two groups are often linked in terms of the sorts of issues they face including underrepresentation. This is based on the assumption that many national, cultural and religious societies have particularly high proportions of BME students so should therefore be targeted in terms of increased support in order to improve BME engagement with the SU. This overlap has also been recognised by NUSiii:

space through which to review and explore relevant issues. While students expressed concerns that lumping heterogeneous ethnic groups together in one bracket was artificial, the overall consensus was that in this case, some level of alliance was necessary. Following principles of community engagement ‘effective consultation means we have to move beyond “representation” and focus instead on the processes that makes consultation really fair and accessible’.vii Under-representation is not unique to this institution. On the contrary, it is a problem that is rooted in HE and academia in general. Although this adds more complex layers to the topic, the context is necessary. It further cements the fact that as a member-led institution, it is the role of SUs to represent their members based on the broader educational context as well as in the immediate surroundings of an individual SU. NUS, in their report Race to Equalityviii, explain that SUs can and should be doing more to overcome broader barriers using their own specific means. Increasing representation and improving student engagement in a Students’ Union is important in its own right, but it is also cited as a route to equality in the broader HE environment.ix Due to the high levels of BME and international students at LSE, it increases the reasons to prioritise engagement in this way.

Black students and international students have traditionally been treated by institutions (and often students’ unions) as two distinct groups, but simple observation demonstrates that, in fact, there are large numbers of Black international students in the sector.iv Bunching the two groups together does not negate their cultural and other differences as Singh warns againstv, it just acknowledges the obvious links.vi Equally, if the overall perception of the average LSE student and their activities communicated by the SU media and the student media groups, is white and British, then it is not surprising that election candidates do not run on diverse issues. In the same vein, it is also not surprising that the elections are perceived as a popularity contest within an inner circle.

This overall lack of representation is problematic because ultimately decisions are being made and priorities are being set based on the voice of a few. As the institution responsible for representing the whole student body, the SU must better facilitate representation. Improving the SU elections is one visible approach but as mentioned earlier, election results are the symbol of more entrenched systems. Elections are of course necessary to facilitating representation, but it

If the SU’s current systems are not functioning as representative, it is up to the SU to adapt them in a more creative and student-led way. The simple consultation that has taken place with these discussion groups, which does not by any means claim to solve the problem, is a start. To date, this project has been the first time that the SU has facilitated a BME-only

2014

18 will not happen unless more holistic steps as part of an integrated strategy are undertaken. The SU must go beyond tokenistic changes as they will undermine the whole process and insult the students who should be being represented. With this in mind, the following sections discuss the findings around the SU support for BME societies, the knowledge surrounding accessibility and inclusivity, and the SU’s role in taking responsibility.

students articulated in the discussion groups, supporting them is not a case of providing hand-outs to them, nor is it to break the cycle of self-sufficiency; it is to level out the playing field between all students. SU time and resource should be delivered with a view to equal and proportional engagement overall, not because of competence. With the BME student population being at over half the student body, the perception is that support and resource allocation would have to increase significantly in order to represent its members proportionally. Students also articulated that it was not a one-way process. The SU has much to gain by integrating existing students and their activities: not only would the SU become a richer campus in terms of students being able to get involved in a more diverse range of activities, but there are existing structures that BME societies could shape and have an immediate effect on, such as Freshers’ Fair and Give It A Go week.

SUPPORT FOR BME SOCIETIES AND STUDENTS From the quantitative data, we know that there are high levels of BME participation in the SU overall. The students in the discussion groups suggest that the levels of BME participation are not consistent throughout all societies and clubs. The case study data for the political parties supports this. This is significant first because it strongly complements the observation that if the levels of BME participation are not low, but BME students notably feel excluded from clubs and societies not associated with countries, culture and religion, these nonBME societies must be disproportionate in terms of BME engagement. These clubs and societies with the perceived low BME membership could be targeted for training and collaboration. Secondly, it means that societies and clubs that naturally have a high number of BME students could be targeted in terms of support from the SU. This section will concentrate on the latter aspect – SU support.

Providing a level playing field cannot be done without taking into account the context. Since the HE world is dominated by white academics and workers,xi and positively enhancing the BME student experience is associated with countering the negative impact of wider under-representation and enabling BME student success, it is logical to say that increased support for BME students is simply a small step in dismantling structural barriers faced by these students. Overcoming these structural barriers is part of the BME Liberation campaign that until recently has not existed at LSESU. With this in mind, it is possible to understand that BME societies are more than just societies. As the students involved in the research communicated, they are community hubs and support networks. And NUS point out,

The quantity and quality of events and activities that the BME societies deliver, demonstrate that neither participation nor competence is a problem. This is recognised nationwide too; Conor et alx cite the higher rate of participation of students from minority groups compared to White students. As

2014

19 Students’ Unions should support and develop societies and clubs that engage Black students, as well as provide opportunities for different cultures to mix, promoting race equality and social cohesion in the process.xii

and reducing challenges around increased and integrated BME engagement. As students mentioned on numerous occasions, ignorance on campus is more of a concern than intentional discrimination. Raising awareness amongst the student body and training the student executives and SU staff would logically go some way both to combat the lack of knowledge and challenge perceptions that have resulted in the lack of accessibility and inclusivity. Participants focused on students but it is acknowledged that a more diverse staff team would also contribute to reaching racial equality in the student body.xiii Equally, more staff training in equality and diversity would help.xiv

This support and development is enhancing and harnessing what already exists. Practically speaking it could be in the form of more media focus, help with events and increased consultation on SU activities. This consultation could extend to what is effectively decentralisation to take into account the lack of BME student officers. This would increase two of the essential components of a member-led organisation - accountability and transparency.

Many students in the discussion groups thought that there was a lack of understanding amongst white and/or home students on issues that affected their integration. Some students felt that this lack of understanding was inherent in an executive team that was not representative. This was, however, one of the most contentious and polarising issues in the discussion group. One response was that a person does not have to be of a certain nationality or ethnicity to understand the specific problems they encounter. The opposing view returned to the principles of having Liberation officers - it is not that some students of one race are incapable of understanding, but that students of a particular Liberation or minority group should be setting their own agenda. A more diverse team would make this more likely. For example, students thought it was ironic that some South Asian students who did not drink, felt excluded from the cricket club -which they associated with South Asia – due to the social aspect that is rooted in British drinking culture.

Students acknowledged that this approach also acknowledges that the lack of support does not necessarily come from a hostile or intentionally discriminatory place; it is the result of a number of factors (inherent in a western academic institution) which need to be tackled in an organic and systematic way in order to be overcome. In other words, it is a structural problem that merits a structural response. Although there are steps that BME students can take themselves, as will be discussed in the final section, students made it clear the ultimately, the responsibility lies with the SU.

ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSIVITY AWARENESS Improving knowledge and practices surrounding accessibility and inclusivity will complement proactive efforts to support BME students more effectively. These factors combined will contribute to better representation. This is because both approaches contribute to removing barriers

2014

20 Similarly, a common theme was that societies and clubs had meetings in socially inaccessible places such as pubs, or at restaurants that were out of people’s price range, or that in the case of sports clubs, the culture of initiations excluded many students. Although the Beaver received a lot of compliments about some high quality content, students thought the majority of contributors were not from a diverse background and their coverage of campus events did not reflect the student demographic. The most obvious example of this is the Beaver using a generic masquerade photo to accompany the publicity for an ACS event for which they provided their own image. Whilst this blatancy is not rife, unanimous or even intentional amongst the variety of contributors in the Beaver, students felt this misrepresentation was not acceptable. The perception is that these factors perpetuate the cycle of the SU only appealing to the more dominant and alreadyengaged students. It also feeds into candidates not basing their manifestos on the actual student body, but the perceived average student presented in student media.

and raising awareness is significant. Targeting key student leaders in the existing society, club and media group membership is important. Expanding and deepening the training of the executive team on both preventative and responsive measures is another approach. Using different staff teams and drawing on their experience of working across different parts of the SU to communicate a message creatively is indispensable. The message might have the best intentions but if it is not framed and delivered in the correct way, it will not be effective

SU RESPONSIBILITY Although individuals and groups of students must take some responsibility for their own engagement with the SU, students repeatedly acknowledged that, ultimately, it is the role of the SU to represent its members and tackle the structural problems that affect BME engagement. For example, based on the logic that the SU and student media do not represent the student body and their activities, and that this contributes to an inaccurate perception of the average LSE student, this perception of an ‘inner-circle’ discourages a diverse election candidacy, and the elected representatives are not representative. In the Lent Term 2014 elections, although BME voter turnout was generally proportional to its demographic, the percentage of BME candidates was only 29 per cent. This is one example of how operational outputs of the SU, such as our media content may affect broader structural concepts such as representation.

It would not be helpful to ban all meetings in pubs for example, but raising awareness about the ramifications of doing this will enable students to make more informed decisions. At the same time, as pointed out in one of the comment pieces in the Beaver, the perception of some clubs, societies and the media group being unapproachable, might also be based on an exaggerated version presented in the media and through hearsay. If this is the case, perhaps the Union needs to prioritise altering the perception of various student groups. Although the response in the Beaver should be taken into account, it cannot be used to negate overall themes from the findings, which suggest the need to focus on training

Another example is the type of events the SU puts on. Using the positive feedback from students about events such as Chinese New

2014

21 Year, Black History Month and Global Village, working in collaboration with students to deliver a more inclusive and diverse programme of events would be well received.

While reaching out to under-represented groups is imperative for a representative SU, the responsibility of shaping the SU’s direction lies with the Sabbatical Officers (representative or not). It is therefore essential that they are involved and invested in any strategic changes for them to be implemented effectively.

As well as adapting the delivery of some of the day-to-day activities, facilitating dialogue and communication between the executive team and BME students is an important step to take. As one participant pointed out, the remit of the Activity and Development Officer, for example, is so broad, that it is understandable that he or she might not be able to cover all the different strands of the role effectively. Instead of this being a deficit in the SU’s capacity, it is an opportunity to capitalise on BME students’ knowledge and use this to enable the executive to make decisions rooted in experience rather than presumptions.

2014

22

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Increasing BME engagement at the SU is essential for true representation in a member-led organisation, but it is also necessary for integration more broadly on campus. In addition, knowing that BME people are under-represented in the wider HE sphere, and that positive support from SUs can go some way to address this imbalance, and that LSE has such a range of ethnicities, addressing the under-representative engagement of BME students must become a priority. The themes from the findings demonstrate that there are specific improvements the SU can make regarding BME engagement. The SU has a solid foundation on which to build and thorough collaboration between teams and the executive Officers, so it is feasible to implement these recommendations. Some of the following recommendations are general and could be transferred to different demographics of students. The other recommendations are specifically relevant to BME students and correspond with the two broad themes - Representation and Liberation and Inclusivity and Accessibility.

1) GENERAL a) Monitor and evaluate data related to under-represented groups Currently the SU does monitor and evaluate some data, for example, from the elections, but this could be expanded to other parts of SU activity such as the AU or society committees. Using a mixture of the SU’s own data and working with MSL to establish a more simple system of monitoring different demographics would be useful. Led by the Engagement team. b) Increase staff training on equality and diversity Staff have some knowledge around equality and diversity but this could be increased. For example, there are specific implications of the Equality Act for SUs and staff should be clear on what they are so they are able to give, and feel comfortable giving, advice to students if incidents of harassment and/or discrimination occur. Staff should also have sufficient knowledge to refer to relevant information on equality and diversity when delivering training to students. This training should not be limited to frontline staff who specifically deliver training to students e.g. the Activities and Engagement team, but should be SU-wide. Therefore, SMT should lead on this.

2014

23

2) REPRESENTATION AND LIBERATION a) Strengthen training for the Sabbatical and Part-Time Officers Like staff, all Officers should know how to respond to students if there is a problem of harassment and/or discrimination. This is not to say that it is the officers’ responsibility to fix a given situation, but they must be informed enough to know where to signpost students. Equally, officers should have more training on Liberation and campaigning so they are able to take a proactive stance on more general issues, as well as being able to respond to specific incidents. SMT and the Engagement team are responsible for the training and development of the Sabbatical Officers and Part-Time Officers respectively so this should be a joint collaboration to ensure there is consistency. b) Strengthen the relationship between the Sabbatical team and BME students and societies. Either adapt and develop existing structures such as the UGM so that they are relevant and practical in terms of listening to students’ concerns and acting on them, or facilitate new avenues of communications between the Sabbatical Officers and students where the Sabbatical Officers are effectively consulting students on how they can practically improve and support and representation. Led by the Engagement team. c) Better support Part-Time Officers and their work with students including targeted support for the new BME Officer. The following suggestions will enable PTOs to represent their members better and be more accountable: i. Facilitate drop-in sessions (Engagement team). ii. Have suggestions boxes and PTO pigeon holes in the ARC (Engagement team). iii. Publicise their work and activities better (Engagement and Communications team). iv. Clarify and communicate the complaints/advice/harassment policies and procedures (Engagement, Advice and Communications team). d) Targeted election support for BME students The following specific recommendations are necessary but short-term. They will only be effective in conjunction with more long-term changes. i. Providing BME Thinking of Standing sessions. ii. Targeted election marketing to BME students e.g. via BME societies’ committees Engagement team can incorporate this into the general elections strategy.

2014

24

INCLUSIVITY AND ACCESSIBILITY e) Raise awareness to prevent exclusion and inaccessibility. i. Run a diversity campaign first – to build on existing communications content to celebrate LSE events and a variety of appropriate awareness days and secondly – to inform and encourage new ways of thinking (e.g. informative and provocative messages on posters/online to challenge stereotypes). This will recognise the pluralistic events that exist at LSE, discourage inaccessible events and make the SU more relevant to more students. This should be led by the Engagement team but delivered jointly with communications team. ii.

Innovative society training – as time in the existing society training is limited, delivering training and communicating the messages might have to be done in a newer, more creative way. Specific preventative rules such as banning initiations does not work as they still exist and cannot be enforced so it might be more beneficial to focus on a more realistic way of changing attitudes and culture. Led by the Activities team.

f)

Create a diverse calendar of events through a mixture of SU-led initiatives and supporting existing student-led ones. This can be linked with the diversity campaign but will also focus on supporting the planning and delivery of events from BME societies as well as putting on events that are accessible to wide variety of students. This collaborative calendar of events should begin with Freshers’ Fair and continue throughout the year. Practically, this could happen by increasing communication between the SU and society heads so the SU can identify how to help. This could be done through regular emails and meetings and through the executive team where appropriate. Led by the Engagement team.

2014

25

Endnotes i

see 2013: 61 (2014) iii NUS refer to Black as a political (as opposed to ethnic) term in place of BME. iv (NUS, 2013: 2) v (2009), vi (see NUS, 2011: 46 for more details). vii (England Athletics, 2011: 3). viii (2011), ix (2011: 45). x (in Singh, 2005: 5) xi (Richards, 2013), xii (2011: 61) xiii (NUS, 2013: 61). xiv (NUS, 2009: 31). ii

2014

26

References

England Athletics. (2011) Toolkit for BME Community Engagement [Online] Available from file:///H:/Toolkit_for_BME_Community_Engagement%20(2).pdf [Accessed 21 April 2015]

NUS (2013) Black international students: Understanding the Issues [Online] Available from http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/resources/open/blackstudents/Black-International-StudentsUnderstanding-the-issues/ [Accessed April 2014] NUS (2011) Race for Equality [Online] Available from http://www.nus.org.uk/en/news/race-forequality/ [Accessed April 2015] NUS (2009) Black Students’ Handbook 2009-10 [Online] Available from http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/news/article/6016/96/ [Accessed April 2014] Richards, E. (2013) Absent from the Academy [Online video] Available from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/diversity/2013/10/absent-from-the-academy-black-academics-in-uk-he/ [Accessed April 2014] Singh, G. (2009) Black and minority ethnic (BME) students' participation in higher education: improving retention and success: a synthesis of research evidence. Higher Education Academy. [Online] Available from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/inclusion/ethnicity/BME_synthesis_FINAL.pdf [Accessed April 2015]

LSESU blogposts and The Beaver Articles Buckley-Irvine, N. (Tuesday 11 March) I make this promise to you. The Beaver [Online] Available from th http://issuu.com/readbeaveronline/docs/the_beaver_810/7 [Accessed 5 May 2015]. th

Budd, K. (Tuesday 11 March) Hit the Road ‘Hack’, The Beaver [Online] Available th fromhttp://issuu.com/readbeaveronline/docs/the_beaver_811/7 [Accessed 5 May 2015]. th

Donszelmann, S. (Tuesday 18 March) All these things that I’ve Done-szelman. The Beaver [Online] Available from http://issuu.com/readbeaveronline/docs/the_beaver_811/9 th

Hughes, A. (Tuesday 11 March) Who’d have thunk it? Paying homage to hack. The Beaver [Online] Available th from http://issuu.com/readbeaveronline/docs/the_beaver_810/8 [Accessed 5 May 2015].

Jinruang, J (Beaver member) interviewing Beland, S (LooSE TV member). (Tuesday 11th March) The Beaver [Online] Available from http://issuu.com/readbeaveronline/docs/the_beaver_810/28 th

Mushtaq, T. (Tuesday 11 March) Getting to Grips with Student Politics. The Beaver [Online] Available from http://issuu.com/readbeaveronline/docs/the_beaver_810/9

2014

27

th

Senapitak, K. (Tuesday 18 March) Who’s afraid of the UGM. The Beaver. [Online] Available from th http://issuu.com/readbeaveronline/docs/the_beaver_811/9 [Accessed 5 May 2015].

Uddin, R. (Tuesday 11th March) LSESU needs a BME Officer. The Beaver [Online] Available from th

http://issuu.com/readbeaveronline/docs/the_beaver_811/7 [Accessed 5 May 2015].

Uddin, R. (2014) Why LSESU needs a BME officer. LSESU Tumblr. [Online] Available from http://lsesu.tumblr.com/post/80058069624/lsesu-needs-a-bme-officer [Accessed March 2014]. th

Tuesday 4 March. Hacks and BME: Identity Politics. The Beaver [Online] Available from http://issuu.com/readbeaveronline/docs/the_beaver_809/2

2014