A group of academics at the University of Cambridge is considering how to implement a call from undergraduates to “decolonise” its English literature syllabus by taking in more black and minority ethnic writers, and bringing post-colonial thought to its existing curriculum.

The debate is being followed closely by other universities. “I think it will grow and I think it will spread - and rightly. It is a good thing that there should be healthy dialogue between university academics and their students, and that their views should be taken seriously,” said Bethan Marshall, a senior lecturer in English education at Kings College in London, and former chair of the National Association fo the Teaching of English. “Good writing is good writing - it is ridiculous to stick to the reified canon when there are so many more interesting writers out there beyond its narrow confines. Good for the students for raising it.”.

A statement from Cambridge university said that while the teaching forum of academics had no decision-making powers, discussions on how postcolonial literature is taught were ongoing.

The statement also condemned “the related harassment directed towards our students on social media as a result of the recent coverage”, as a Twitter storm broke on the issue – with accusations both of racist thinking, and of the university giving in to student demands.

The discussion was begun last spring by a small group of students taking English who were concerned that their reading list elevated white, male authors at the expense of all others. Their thoughts were formalised by Lola Olufemi, women’s officer in the Cambridge students’ union, in an open letter widely circulated in the university, signed by hundreds and forwarded to the teaching forum, which met earlier this month. Although the teaching forum cannot enforce a change in the syllabus, its views are being taken seriously by the university.

Dr Priyamvada Gopal, a teaching fellow of Churchill college and member of the forum, with a specialist interest in postcolonial literature and theory, said no white writers would be affected by the proposed changes.

“Broadening the syllabus means putting different writers and texts in conversation with each other, not ‘downgrading’ or even eliminating a single writer. It’s a request, as I understand it, for more representation of ethnic minority and postcolonial writers but for the purposes of thinking about these works alongside the existing texts.”

“It is also not just about adding texts but about rethinking the whole question of Britishness, Englishness and what they mean in relation to the empire and the post-imperial world, questions of race, gender, sexuality and so on. There’s also a sense that the curriculum should have an expansive sense of ‘Britain’ and English literature itself.”

Rianna Croxford, who has just graduated in English, was one of the group of about 20 students who met in the spring. She said she was startled by the ferocity of some of the coverage. The Telegraph, for example, described Cambridge “caving in” to student demands.

She said they were generally encouraged by the positive response from academics. “We’re not calling for the scrapping of the present syllabus, just stating that its horizons can be widened. It cannot be impossible to include at least one black writer, and one question relating to the postcolonial dimension,” she said. “It should not be possible for any student today to read Shakespeare plays such as Othello or The Tempest, and not consider the postcolonial context.”

Croxford comes from a state school background, and was the only minority ethnic or black student taking English at Trinity Hall in 15 years. She said one of the problems in the discussion was that there were so few such voices, both in the student and academic bodies.



“At present, the only option to write about BAME writers exists as an optional ‘postcolonial paper’,” she said. “Many students feel like a nuisance or ‘token’ for wanting to discuss race, gender, intersectionality, or writing about texts that are not considered part of the ‘canon’, and few academics specialise in these areas.

“As a result, we find ourselves doing our own research and paving our own curriculum. It is ridiculous that any English student can go through three years of their degree and never be confronted with race, colonial history or postcolonial thought: our course is called ‘English Literature and its contexts’ and unfortunately colonialism and its aftermath is a context intertwined across the centuries.”

She added: “I enjoy the works of Donne, Hardy and Milton as much as anyone else, but I don’t think my education in ‘literature’ ends there.”

At the University of East Anglia, Christopher Bigsby, critic, novelist and professor of American studies, said “open discussions and disagreements can only enrich the lives of teachers and students alike… Today, it would be difficult to teach the contemporary British novel, for example, without reflecting those authors with roots elsewhere who have so enriched our literature. The list is long and irresistible.”

However, he expressed disquiet about tailoring of a curriculum to suit particular views. “The idea that a curriculum should be patrolled to see that it accords to the views of particular groups, of whatever kind, backed up by formal requirements, makes me uneasy. No, more than that, it is unacceptable.

“The attempt by a government whip implicitly to seek to do that in the name of Brexit, dumb and offensive though it was, is a warning that the freedom of teachers to teach without intrusion has to be protected.”