Division among UCL eugenics inquiry as official report condemned for failing university
Two competing sets of views into how University College London should deal with its historic involvement with eugenics have been published following a rift within the inquiry team.
The spat came to light as UCL published an independent report into these past links, commissioned in 2018 and led by University of Leeds academic Iyiola Solanke, on 28 February. UCL has several spaces named after prominent Victorian eugenicists Francis Galton and Karl Pearson, who both had links to the university.
Last month, former contractor to No.10 Andrew Sabisky was dropped from his role after it was revealed that he had allegedly been due to speak at a eugenics conference hosted at UCL in 2015 without the university’s knowledge. A report into the London Conference on Intelligence series—also attended by former Office for Students non-executive director Toby Young—that took place between 2014 and 2017 was also published by UCL on 28 February.
In the official report, the inquiry team—made up of internal and external academics, professional services staff and student representatives—said the university should rename buildings and spaces associated with eugenicists, use funds left to the university by Francis Galton to pay for scholarships for students targeted by eugenics such as disabled students or black, Asian and minority ethnic students, and improve race and disability awareness training for staff.
But a breakaway group of 10 of the inquiry team, called the MORE subgroup of members, made its own set of recommendations it claims will make sure UCL “keeps focus on matters directly relevant to our terms of reference” and that the university “[does] more than is presented in the chair’s report”.
Joe Cain, UCL biologist and member of the inquiry breakaway group, told Research Professional News that the official report had “failed UCL” and offered “a poor argument for what UCL should do” to tackle its historic links with eugenics. He said it had reached conclusions that “most of the committee chose to withdraw from” either because of the content of the recommendations or how they were introduced.
“I think it lets down the scholarship, the students, and the staff,” he said, although he stressed that there was “gold” in the report around stigmatisation on campus. “Some excellent research will come out from the staff supporting the Inquiry. But the report itself adds little.”
In response, Solanke said it was “hard to see how the inquiry ‘failed UCL’ given that the report was welcomed by the provost and the recommendations—which overlap to a large degree as the ‘alternative’ recommendations were drawn from those in the Report—will be implemented to the benefit of all students and staff, not only those who advocated for the Inquiry”.
While the rival recommendations are similar, with both telling UCL to repurpose funds left by Galton and rename buildings associated with the eugenicists, the breakaway group went further and urged the university to develop a major, permanent exhibition on eugenics, provide signs to explain why buildings’ names have changed and issue a public apology “acknowledging its complicity in the institutionalisation of eugenics”.
Commenting on the “vitally important” report, provost and principal Michael Arthur said both sets of recommendations will be put before a panel that will consider the university’s response. The panel will report back by the start of the next academic year.
“For far too long, uncertainties and assumptions about UCL’s involvement in the eugenics movement have cast a shadow over this university,” Arthur added. On Twitter, Cain said he backed Arthur and applauded the initiatives UCL had promised to deliver as a result of the inquiry.
The university said it is funding a two-year research post to explore UCL’s links to eugenics in more detail, as well as scholarships to study racism and commitments to ensuring UCL staff and students learn about its history of eugenics.
A spokeswoman for UCL referred Research Professional News to the university’s statement published on 28 February. It said: “UCL has set up a group to produce a formal response to the Inquiry’s recommendations, co-led by Professor Anthony Smith, Vice-Provost (Education & Student Affairs) and another senior UCL academic who will be confirmed shortly.
“As the committee was unable to reach full consensus on the final report and recommendations, the group will consider all recommendations put forward by the inquiry members in detail and will report back with an implementation plan by the beginning of the next academic year for consideration by the Academic Board and approval by UCL’s Council.”