I am now certain that Rhodes will fall, regardless of public opinion. Here’s why
In July, Oriel College, Oxford set up a panel to consider the future of a statuette of Cecil Rhodes that rests in a niche high in the building paid for by the diamond magnate himself. It seemed, at the time, like a wise move. The college was being besieged by Black Lives Matter protesters, some of whom were making considered arguments against memorialising Rhodes while others railed in general terms against slavery, police brutality, apartheid and a hundred other evils unconnected to the dapper adventurer. It seemed sensible to pass the decision to a commission that could deliberate cool-headedly.
Glancing at the public positions of the nine commissioners, though, it looks as if Oriel has empanelled a hanging jury. Most have said things that are, in broad terms, woke; and several appear to have already made up their minds to remove the statue.
We all have our starting assumptions, of course. Still, it is worth noting how unrepresentative these particular assumptions are. According to a poll for Policy Exchange, 65 per cent of British people agree with the following statement: “It is unfair to make judgments about people in the past based on today’s values. Statues of people who were once celebrated should be allowed to stand.” At the same time, 69 per cent are proud of Britain’s past.
Bear those numbers in mind as we consider the opinions of the various commissioners. Michelle CodringtonRogers, president of the teachers’ union, the NASUWT, describes herself as “a long-time activist and advocate for the decolonisation of the UK curriculum”. During protests against the statue, she said: “We keep fighting on to expose the raw wounds of the past and try to heal them for the benefit of the next generation. So I thank you all who are involved in the Rhodes Must Fall campaign.”
Shaista Aziz, a local Labour councillor, was one of the loudest supporters of the Rhodes Must Fall campaign. Her position leaves no room for nuance. “It has to go,” she has said. “The college has to understand that it can’t backtrack on this.”
William Beinart, an emeritus professor at St Anthony’s College, is more balanced in his assessment of Rhodes, but has none the less written that the statue should be moved to a museum.
Other commissioners, while they might not have opined on Rhodes, have made clear in general terms where they stand on Britain’s imperial legacy. Laura Van Broekhoven, director of the Pitt Rivers Museum, is keen on returning artefacts and decolonising museums. For some people we are “a very hostile space,” she says. Zeinab Badawi, the broadcaster, has made a series on African history which takes a predictable BBC line, presenting pre-colonial civilisations as almost prelapsarian.
Chairing the commission is Carole Souter, a former civil servant, who told this newspaper in July that pulling out the statue “was not a foregone conclusion”. It is hard to reconcile that statement with the apparent opinions of a number of her commissioners – or, indeed, with her own past opinions.
When, for example, the Mandela Rhodes Foundation declared, “Today we share Nelson Mandela’s true intention for the MRF and our perspectives on reconciliation, reparation and social change. #blacklivesmatter #rhodesmustfall”, Ms Souter retweeted it, adding: “A powerful and challenging piece. Are we ready to act?” (Note, as an aside, that Mandela himself, far from seeking to cancel Rhodes, was keen to work with the Rhodes Trust to promote scholarships for African students.)
The commissioners have not said anything unwarranted. Their views are perfectly legitimate. It is simply that they seem to be unlikely to reach the conclusion that nine randomly chosen members of the public would reach. My guess is that, after a short discussion, they will divide 7-2 in favour of removing the statue, and will then move on to telling Oriel what else it must do, such as taking down its portraits of white men or establishing admissions quotas. Thus do critical theory, intersectionalism and identity politics continue their long march through the institutions, untroubled by public opinion.
It is a pity, since a commission of this kind could put things into context. It could, for example, take into account Rhodes’s opposition to the disenfranchisement of black voters in Cape Colony. It could note his calls for “equal rights for every civilised man south of the Zambezi”. It could acknowledge his sponsorship of Izwi Labantu, the newspaper of what became the African National Congress. It could consider the terms under which he created the Rhodes Scholarships: “No student shall be qualified or disqualified for election to a scholarship on account of his race.” Within five years, one of those coveted places had been won by a black American, the distinguished writer Alain LeRoy Locke. Today, a fifth of Rhodes Scholars come from Africa.
It could recognise that Rhodes’s statue by HA Pegram is integral to Oriel’s facade – as, indeed, are the likenesses by the same sculptor of,
prima facie, far more controversial alumni, such as Thomas Arundel, a medieval bishop who was an enthusiastic burner of Lollards, and William Allen, who was on Spain’s side during the Armada. I wish I could say that these clergymen were further from modern sensibilities than the relatively liberal (and Liberal) Rhodes; but the truth is that their intolerance of dissent would fit right in with our censorious mood.
Above all, the commission could underline that universities are supposed to be a safe space for reason. Many Rhodes Must Fall campaigners are uninterested in detail, because they want to see Rhodes as a detestable symbol rather than as a complex man. But hurt feelings should not override facts.
When the campaign against Rhodes began five years ago, a poll of Oriel undergraduates showed that there were majorities among students of all ethnic backgrounds for keeping his statue. That seems also to be the view of the country at large and, indeed, of the government it recently elected. Yet we are likely to get a different policy decreed by an appointed panel. That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with modern Britain.
Universities are supposed to be a safe space for reason, but many Rhodes activists are uninterested in detail