In May,  Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at London School of Economics, posted ‘research’ on U.S website, Psychology Today.  In it he claimed that ‘women on average are more physically attractive than men. So women of all races are on average more physically attractive than the “average”…respondent, except for black women.’  You are not mistaken; you did read that right and the italics are the writer’s own.

The racist and misogynistic post is entitled ‘Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?’ Kanazawa’s rhetorical question assumes it is one of humanity’s persistent quandaries, one he is gleefully prepared to answer. His alleged ‘respondents’ rated black women as ‘significantly less physically attractive’. The scientist goes on to site various reasons for this empirical ‘fact’.  He suggests one possible reason is due to BMI as black women are ‘heavier than nonblack women’. Although he mentions BMI and makes a passing comment on the low intelligence of black women being a factor in their unattractiveness, he quickly discounts these as viable reasons.

He moves on to looking at genetics as a cause. In one of the many moments reminiscent of Nazi eugenics propaganda, he states, ‘Africans have more mutations in their genomes than other races. And the mutation loads significantly decrease physical attractiveness (because physical attractiveness is a measure of genetic and developmental health).’  However, he writes, based on the material garnered from his ‘respondents’, this genetic argument for ugliness does not apply to black men because they are seen as more attractive.  Kanazawa sums up this sexist-racist tour de force by concluding that the unattractiveness of black women is a result of their higher testosterone levels.

One can only wonder how with views such as these, Kanazawa is able to remain an academic at one of our most prestigious universities, LSE.  His very scientific credibility is based on his involvement with such an institution.  Accompanying his I’m-a-mild-mannered-scientist picture on the Psychology Today blogs are the details of his scientific gravitas at prestigious British universities. Kanazawa is not merely a racist zealot; he is also ‘Honorary Research Fellow in the Department of Psychology at University College London, and in the Department of Psychology at Birkbeck College, University of London.’ It is hard to understand how these institutions cannot respond to calls for his dismissal.

Shocking too is the fact that this Nazi era pseudo-scientific twaddle was read and given clearance by online editors at Psychology Today.  It is the nonsense you would expect from racist forums like Stormfront. Typical of this type of empirical psychobabble, Kanazawa provides garbled details of his methodology as follows:

The physical attractiveness of each Add Health respondent is measured three times by three different interviewers over seven years. From these three scores, I can compute the latent “physical attractiveness factor” by a statistical procedure called factor analysis. Factor analysis has the added advantage of eliminating all random measurement errors that are inherent in any scientific measurement. The latent physical attractiveness factor has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.

Presumably such impenetrable language (and equally incomprehensible accompanying graphs) is proof positive that his work is on solid ground and cannot be challenged.  Yet, Kanazawa fails to provide details of the scale of his seven-year study and the ethnic make up of its participants surely a scientific no no?

At one point Kanazawa gives himself room to observe that:

“It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others”

Clearly, beauty is an entirely objective attribute, divorced of cultural bias (something he has argued before in previous posts on the site).  Kanazawa’s ‘scientific report’, in tone, congratulates itself with the idea that it is the first of its kind, bravely going where many dare not.  Yet, sadly, he is merely one in a long line.  For centuries now, the predominant Western gaze has continually affirmed its own position by labeling black people as inherently ugly.  Thinkers such as the philosophical heavy weight, Immanuel Kant, wrote that the African’s ‘ugliness of appearance’ limited them from being able to properly comprehend beauty and the sublime as they had ‘no feeling beyond the trifling’.

In her 2006 collection of essays, Beautiful Ugly, Sarah Nuttall writes that ‘ugly …has so often been the sign under which the African has been read’.  Throughout the history of the West, its aesthetic has figured Black people as essentially ugly.  Novelist, Toni Morrison has called the concept of beauty as amongst ‘the most destructive ideas in the history of human thought’.  These ideas continue to wield real power over the lives of black women today, who spend billions of pounds a year on hair straightening/extensions and skin lightening products.

Although Psychology Today removed the blog post and replaced it with one by Mikhail Lyubansky highlighting the flaws in Kanazawa’s argument, the question still remains, why have they not apologized?  Such offensive material should never have seen the light of day.  On the same site, Kanazawa was able to spout spurious scientific material such as this 2008 post in which he stated that ‘beautiful people are genuinely different from ugly people, because they are genetically and developmentally healthier’.

The powers that be at LSE are still hanging their heads in shame for their links with the Gaddafi regime, there is now one more reason to duck for cover.

A pinch of Anger
Decades of oppression and injustice
Hotpoint kettling
A good size gathering of people
Police brutality and control
National Government intrusion
Large Portions of Media Exaggeration and Distortion
A lost generation
26 years of illegal wars
A large packet of MPs spinning lies and taking money
A whisk, blend stir and batter of hope to make it bittersweet
A fistful of Robin Hood Tax on bankers, the crunching of marching feet
Homemade Creativity and Movement
A camera/whistle/horn/ some pick and mix chanting and placard
And Finally a peaceful free flowing soul

By Kavi Hewavitarne

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.

What is the reality that students now face in light of the increase of tuition fees?

Young people going to university will face the choice of studying what they want to study for personal or intellectual fulfillment, and the subject that will get them a job that ensures they can pay back their debt.  And the debt will be substantial – £27,000 in fees for a three-year course, plus living costs (say a further £15,000), plus interest!  What eighteen-year-old from a working class background will study English or Classics now?  Because the harsh reality is, there are very few jobs for graduates.  One in five 18-24 year olds is currently unemployed.  Even if this situation changes in a few years, there will be a generation of students studying vocational degrees through the fear of debt and unemployment.  Intellectual curiosity, creativity and the cultivation of critical thinking – once the goal of student life – are being sacrificed to the market economy.

Considering the Liberal Democrat’s previous election pledges, what has been their justification in now supporting a threefold increase in tuition fees?

Many Lib Dem MPs, including Deputy PM Nick Clegg, signed an NUS pledge saying they would scrap tuition fees.  But the minute they got into power they reneged on this promise.  Their excuse is they didn’t know how bad the deficit was and they can’t make all the decisions they would want to, because they are in a coalition government.

Nick Clegg promised that most universities would charge £6000 per year in fees, but this has proved to be another lie – most universities have said they will charge the maximum £9000 per year.  He has also repeatedly said that if universities want to charge £9000 per year they will have to ensure access for students from underprivileged backgrounds.  However, the group that will be targeted is students who qualify for free school meals.  This is a completely arbitrary scheme because what about those students who are just above the threshold for free school meals, but are too poor to afford the extortionate fees?  Or what about kids from large families, where parents will have to make tough choices about which kids they will support through university?  Anyway, given his track record, I don’t hold out much hope for this scheme.

Who will the increase of these fees affect the most and why?

As I’ve suggested, the increase in fees will affect those just above the threshold for free school meals and others who will struggle to afford university for other reasons (like being one child out of several who want to do a degree).  The poorest will be catered for with patronising bursaries and the richest because it won’t affect them – everyone else is left out in the cold.

Will measures such as the graduate tax scheme and making repayments on earning £21000 per annum be a fair and sustainable way of paying back these loans?

A graduate tax is different to what the government is proposing – it is a levy on a graduate’s income, which will be tied to their earnings.  The NUS is in favour of such a scheme, but I believe in free education – I think everyone in society should be able to study at any level of the education system.  The government’s plan, instead, is that everyone pays back their fees, student loan and interest until the age of 40 (the amount isn’t tied to income, but rather the course that you do).  They argue that because you start paying back when you earn £21,000 per year that it is more progressive than the current system where you pay back when you earn £15,000 per year.  But at the minute, you pay back £9000+ when you earn £15,000.  Now it will be £27,000+.  So while you start later, you are paying three times as much!  What’s fair about that?  The government has also failed to realise that more women go to university now than men, but women earn 16.5% less than men, so will be paying back their fees for longer.  This has terrible repercussions in terms of gender equality.

What’s the general feeling amongst fellow students and lecturers?

Students and lecturers are outraged by the proposed changes.  There have been occupations and staff strikes across the country.  If only the government cared what we have to say!

How have you felt about the student protests and have you encountered any police violence?

The wave of student protests has been a real surprise.  I went to the first demonstration on November 10 2010, I expected it to be a small, with a few hundreds students.  Instead, there were 50,000 students!  There was an incredible atmosphere.  I left about 3pm, but later that day some students smashed the windows of the Tory HQ, Millbank, and one student, Edward Woollard, threw a fire extinguisher off the roof.   It was a shame that the media coverage focused entirely on the activities at Millbank, rather than the show of strength of thousands of students who peacefully protested against the government’s proposals.  That pattern was repeated across the demonstrations.

In terms of police violence, I have been kettled several times.   Kettling is where the police cordon off an area, trapping protestors inside, sometimes for hours on end.  They don’t provide toilet facilities, or food and water.  It’s a stressful experience.  Friends of mine have been beaten by the police.  And the police have used disgraceful tactics like charging kettles with horses.  They have also been filming all of the protests and keeping records of those involved, which is an infringement of our civil liberties.  Sometimes, they have refused to let people leave a kettle unless they have their photograph taken.  It seems to me that the police have hugely overreacted to the demonstrations, but I think they are also trying to provoke people.  That’s the point of a kettle – contain people in a small space, so that the pressure will increase and violence will break out.  Then the police can claim it was the protestors’ fault.

How did the UCL Occupation come about?

We had a protest on UCL campus on 24^th November, following the huge student demo on the 10^th November.  There were about 150 people in the quad and someone suggested marching around the university.  When we got to the Jeremy Bentham Room (a large conference room), someone suggested we occupy it and we all agreed.  I later found out that this had been planned by a small group of UCL activists.

What is your role in the UCL Occupation?

Initially, I was just one of about 200-300 people (our numbers swelled once we established the occupation).  One person who had been involved in climate camp was facilitating our meetings.  I had experience chairing meetings from my background in debating and model United Nations, so I volunteered to do that.  We used the consensus model of facilitation , which was new to me, but I soon got the hang of it.

We set up several working groups, which organised different aspects of the occupation.  Everyone chipped in to different working groups.  I also helped out with the media working group, talking to the press, organising interviews and updating twitter, facebook and our blog.  I helped the events group on a couple of occasions, and I wrote a couple of Christmas Carols!

In light of the student protests, do you think that we’ve seen a change in student apathy?

Absolutely!  UCL was considered a conservative university with a large proportion of public school students.  But in the past six months we’ve had three occupations!  I’ve seen people go from being apolitical to joining Black Bloc in that time.  It’s unbelievable the rate of radicalisation that’s gone on in British universities this year.  Young people are definitely no longer apathetic.  This is just the beginning in terms of protest and direct action, I think there’s a lot more to come.

What do see for the future of higher education?

I think it’s pretty dismal to be honest.  The main problem with the Browne Report is not so much the fees, but the fact that state funding is being almost completely removed from universities.  Only a few science subjects will be funded, meaning all the arts and humanities will be left open to market forces.  Subjects that don’t lead to jobs will perish.  Intellectual freedom will suffer in a bid to provide the biggest and best courses to student consumers.  Stefan Collini has written about these dangers here, and I have here.  It’s a worrying time for higher education in the UK.

Do you feel like students have lost the battle- what is next for the UCL Occupation?

No, not yet.  The poll tax passed in Parliament but was never implemented.  And now students have linked up with local anti-cuts groups, NHS activist networks and trade unions, which can only make the movement stronger.  March 26 saw 500,000 people out on the streets of London protesting against the government cuts, and when the cuts start to bite we will see even more.  We may have lost the battle (the vote in Parliament) but the war is far from over.

-Ivor Southwood

Those who lie on the edge of the flag
victorious red, white and blue
Britain, land of hope and glory
you belong to the very few

‘Fairness’ is today’s buzz word
so I will treat kind for kind
your time on trial will be brief, discrete
a few home truths- to ease my mind:

Britain, you widen the gap
between rich and poor
while tax-free aristocrats
cheat the system for more, and more

Yet it’s the welfare state
‘in need of desperate attention’
funny how you’re too busy
to give the tax evaders a mention

Older women disappear
from our TV screens
replaced by buxom girls with pearly whites
cleavage busting from the seams

Britain, you reduce the rest of us
to the fringes, to our whinges
shrinking our brains to fit
Daily Mail showbiz binges

Britain, you ignore the majority
you inflate our education
you’d rather focus on Will and Kate
To unify the nation

Yes Kate, the fair ‘commoner’
is now public property
her smile now frozen
with PR instructed deity

Her marriage with the media
will last till death do her part
she’s being wheeled out, exhibited
‘She’s got Diana’s heart’

Dear Britain, your MPs make cuts
on expense bought pedestals
they communicate in “rars” and “roars”
but treat us all like fools

Yellow politicians do nothing
but make up the numbers
blue winds blow hard
sending socialism to its slumber

Dear Britain, times get tougher
Yet you bring scapegoats to the slaughter
‘It’s me, it’s you,
the foreigner and his daughter’

The refugee searches for asylum,
a safe place without screams
the single mother on benefit
scrapes by, by any means

So old Blighty, forgive me
but adjourning this trial would be absurd
this ‘age of austerity’ has gone to your head
your moral standing has become blurred

Dear Blighty, your system is full of loopholes
we’re drowning in your debt
Britain, land of hope and glory
we’ve not seen true justice from you yet.

Selina Nwulu

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.

Deemed as an all-round success, no one can deny that the events in the day were mostly peaceful and paid tribute to the stella organisation skills of the TUC. However as the day moved on, a more aggressive form of ‘protest’ developed. We’ve all read about the backlash and many heard of the ammonia filled light bulbs that were thrown at the police.

As shocking as this was, this violent undertone of protest is unfortunately nothing new. There will always be a violent aspect to larger protests whether from a minority  group of ‘protesters’ or the aggressive actions of the police, Ian Tomlinson being a fitting example among many others.  People looking to cause trouble will always gate crash other people’s causes and use it as a platform to justify their own violent behaviour.

However can the same be said for the minority involved in the Black Bloc movement, a masked group who vandalised symbolic property throughout the march?  Their anonymous interview in the Guardian was telling. Far from the yobs and misfits the government would have us label them; they spoke articulately about their cause and motivations and were able to voice this to the mainstream media without sacrificing their anonymity.  And for the group to do something seemingly spontaneous (although this is a bit too hard to believe) and still out-fox the police, indicates that this required more than a black hoodie but actual brain power.

As misguided as these actions were, they brought the demonstration and the nature protest to the top of the agenda. Granted, with up to an estimated 500 000 people protesting for such a topical and important cause; it was always going to attract media attention. But rightly or wrongly, to what extent would this have happened without the actions of these alternative movements such as the Black Bloc?  Although for the most part the media was clear that the main demonstration was a success, the debate that lingered was over the nature of the violent protests. What does this say about our society when it is violence and damage that attracts more headlines?  Do you remember the fire-fighter’s protest last September or the recent protests in Germany against nuclear power? These were peaceful protests that didn’t stay in the media spotlight for long, presumably because respectful people protesting in the streets en mass and then going home isn’t sexy media fodder.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not about to don my balaclava (and in this weather?!) and hoist a paintball gun on my back. I saw the damage done to those shops and the fear these actions inflict on others who have nothing to do with the government. Despite the Black Bloc’s intention to, ‘send a message’ I couldn’t help wonder who they actually thought they were hurting.  Something tells me that Phil Green isn’t about to roll up his sleeves and start scrubbing the paint off the walls of Topshop. It’s the underpaid worker that has to deal with it which only maintains the vertical structures we live in where the ‘poor’ cleans up after the mess of the rich.

But what actually are our alternatives when nothing in society tells us we have a say worth listening to? With no overall majority during the 2010 elections, the coalition government was formed based on back hand deals and sly manoeuvres we’ll presumably only know about when some backbencher memoir is released years down the line, demonstrations see the police kettling and manipulating protesters, thus stifling their right to protest, tuition fees are soaring thus excluding a good chunk of people in to their right to higher education. The list goes on but the point is; now more than ever, our government is sending out signals that the majority has no say over the society we live in.

Politically, on the day of the march we had Ed Miliband as a speaker for the ‘alternative’.  However he compared the anti-cuts struggle to the civil rights movement (let’s just let that one go), didn’t really seem to offer an alternative and just rode the bandwagon placed before him.  When we push Ed’s awkward clichés aside, there doesn’t seem much hope in the Labour party leading the way to genuine change.

March 26 seemed to confirm this new era of protest we are entering based on our frustrations. The rise of groups that pioneer direct action tap into this feeling that to actually gain the attention of the government and wider public alike, you’re going to get your hands dirty. However, how this can and should be interpreted is another question. Groups such as UK Uncut and Climate Rush protest in a way that doesn’t inflict fear on Joe Bloggs walking down the street minding his own business. Instead Joe might even be inclined to watch the theatrical means of protest those groups employ and actually question what the fight is for as opposed to fleeing from wayward shards of glass from broken windows.

On looking back at the media reaction from the march, I’m left feeling unsure by how much the demonstration would have made the news had the protests ended at Hyde Park with the majority of the other demonstrators. It’s a sad state of affairs when we need to ponder on this, but do we need the tactics of the Black Bloc ilk to push forward our agenda? The idea of this makes me feel uncomfortable and goes against my principles. And yet it seems like while society looks down on this kind of violent action, it readily engages in the necessary debate associated with it. Contrast this against peaceful protests where coverage remains fleeting and limited.

In light of an age where more people are looking for their voices to be heard and to express their anger against the government, what message does this send out to people wondering how to protest?