The arts lecturer who used the phrase ‘the dreaded Meghan’ in a Zoom tutorial
and publications. Anne also gave talks for local branches of the Arts Society, a non-profit organisation that promotes interest in all forms of the arts.
It was a regular source of income that became more vital after she was made redundant by Southampton Solent in 2007, aged 51.
As for many of us, the advent of the pandemic meant she had to pivot her work onto Zoom — which brings us to that fateful evening of Wednesday, March 10, 2021, when she gave her talk on Scandinavian design (labelled ‘How We Got Ikea’ to pique people’s interest).
With official ‘kick-off’ at 7.30pm, Anne logged on to her laptop at about 7pm and found several people already waiting.
‘I knew around 50 people had enrolled, of whom I could see ten or so on my screen,’ she recalls. ‘I didn’t know any of them but we started chatting about family life and Covid, which were the primary topics of the time.’
That and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, whose ‘tell-all’ interview had generated worldwide media coverage. The talking point of the moment, it was hard not to speak about it, Anne says.
‘After joking about attendance, I remember saying something about the fact that I didn’t think Meghan had much to complain of in the Californian sunshine.’
She then made her ‘colourful’ comment, which she insists has been grossly misinterpreted. ‘It wasn’t targeted at Meghan or anyone in particular,’ she insists. ‘What I was upset about was that the television coverage had been incredibly heated and, in my view, unquestioning of their claim that the British were racist.’ It seems many of the audience agreed: Anne recalls how one said she had switched channels to watch a repeat of the quiz show Would I Lie To You?
After the lecture, Anne switched off her camera at 8.30pm with no idea that anything was amiss. Two days later, everything changed. ‘Around 5.45pm on Friday evening, I got an email from the education officer at the Arts Society telling me I had been suspended due to a complaint for using non-inclusive language,’ Anne says. ‘She demanded that I hand over a copy of my recording of the lecture. I was in shock, to be quite honest.
‘I’d worked for them for 27 years but there hadn’t been one attempt to contact me to hear my side of the story. I also had no idea what “non-inclusive language” meant.’ Anne was bewildered but eventually told the Society she would happily fully apologise to whoever she had unintentionally offended. ‘I was contacted by email to be told I would be called to a complaints panel, where I was to be questioned by, among others, the complainant and Arts Society chief executive Florian Schweizer,’ she recalls.
‘I was surprised because I’d offered to apologise and under the rules which the Arts Society themselves set, they are supposed to take the apology back to the complainant — but there was no acknowledgement they had done that. From the email it was also clear she had heard a different word to the one I used. She thought I’d referred to people of a “coloured persuasion” not “colwriting ourful” disposition.’ It was at this stage that Anne showed the video clip, which she believed would vindicate her. If she had hoped that this would placate her accuser, she was wrong. ‘She wasn’t satisfied — she maintained that what I had said was racist.’
As a result, Anne was told that if she was to stand a chance of getting her accreditation back, she would have to attend a full complaints hearing. Anne felt she had little choice but to appoint a solicitor at her own expense.
Although the complaints panel found insufficient evidence to prove Anne’s comments were racist, they said it could have been interpreted as racist, and she had brought the society into disrepute. ‘They then issued an enormous list of requirements I had to fulfil before I could be accredited again,’ she says. This included
‘It was claimed what I’d said was racist’
an apology to the complainant and to a member of staff I had complained about in connection with the process.’ But she questioned whether an apology was justified.
‘A few days later I had a letter saying I had violated their conditions and I would no longer have my accreditation.’
Now she must wait to see if the law can offer her any redress.
The Arts Society said: ‘A serious complaint of racism was made against Dr Anderson which had nothing to do with her views of Meghan or the Royal Family.
‘We had a duty to investigate the complaint and to ensure the process was fair to Dr Anderson. We fulfilled both of those duties.’
The Society noted that it was not the convening of a complaints panel that caused Dr Anderson to be disaccredited, but her failure to comply with some of the conditions imposed upon her, and her ‘unreasonable’ escalations of the issue, including by speaking to the Press with what they say is an inaccurate account and bringing the Arts Society into disrepute.