https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ucl-begin-process-renaming-buildings-named-after-eugenicists
UCL to begin process of renaming buildings named after eugenicists

Report into history of eugenics at UCL sets out series of measures to deal
with contentious past, but some inquiry members claim it does not go far
enough
February 28, 2020
By Anna McKie <https://www.timeshighereducation.com/author/anna-mckie>
Twitter: @annamckie <https://twitter.com/annamckie>

[image: UCL sign]

An inquiry has led to UCL stating it will begin the process of renaming
spaces named after famous eugenicists, following a report into its historic
link with the controversial field of eugenics.

One of the main recommendations from the inquiry, which was led by Iyiola
Solanke, chair in European Union law at the University of Leeds
<https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/university-leeds>,
was to rename spaces and awards where the namesake is associated with
eugenics, such as Francis Galton, the originator of the term, and Karl
Pearson.

It also recommended that UCL issue “a meaningful and effective apology” to
acknowledge the harm and hurt caused by its complicity in eugenics to
people in BAME and targeted communities.
Galton, a Victorian scientist known as the “father of eugenics”, provided
UCL with a hefty endowment and his personal archive.

Michael Arthur, president of UCL, said that he accepted the report and its
recommendations in principle and would also recommend that the university’s
buildings naming and renaming committee start the formal process for the
relevant buildings and prizes.

According to the report, naming buildings after the “father of eugenics”
and others who supported it, makes it seem as if UCL condones the work done
by those individuals and creates “an unwelcoming environment for students
and staff who identify as BAME, disabled or come from a low-income
background”.

The report said that its recommendations, which also include ensuring that
BAME and disabled staff are recruited and retained, as well as decolonising
the curricula in all departments, are necessary “so that UCL can reconcile
its past with its current values and its future”.

In response, the university said that it would also fund new scholarships
to study race and racism, ensure UCL staff and students learn about the
history and legacy of eugenics and create a two-year research post to
further examine UCL’s history of eugenics.

However, a large proportion of the committee said that the inquiry did not
go far enough and refused to sign the report.

Joe Cain, professor of history and philosophy of biology at UCL and a
member of the inquiry who refused to sign, wrote online that he felt the
inquiry did not cover eugenics widely enough. “By just focusing on race it
ignored the fact that most eugenics research and advocacy targeted
low-income European migrants into England, defended antisemitism and
nativism, and worked against people with disabilities of all kinds,” he
said.

He added that it focuses too much on one villain – Galton – and therefore
lets others off the hook, particularly those outside UCL who contributed to
eugenics.

The report itself acknowledges that there were “constraints on time and
resources”.

The 10 inquiry members who refused to sign published their own set of
recommendations that they presented to the president. These include calling
for signage to explain the reasons for the renaming, “including the
historical linkage of named individuals to eugenics advocacy and scientific
racism”.

They also say that all departments must devise action plans “to describe
and reflect upon how they, their predecessors, and their disciplines
participated in the history of eugenics”.

Professor Arthur said that he had established a working group to “consider
how UCL can respond to all recommendations received”.

Some took issue with the fact that the inquiry did not investigate the London
Conference on Intelligence
<https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ucl-launches-investigation-secret-eugenics-conference>,
a secret annual event that heard from white supremacists and was attended
by controversial journalist Toby Young.

The events were organised by James Thompson, an honorary senior lecturer in
psychology at the university, and included contributions from a researcher
who previously advocated child rape.

However, UCL decided to publish a report from a separate inquiry into the
conference. This report was finalised in 2018 but UCL said that it had held
back from publishing “because of the significant amount of personal
information contained in the report”.

On 28 February, “in the interests of ensuring transparency in the public
interest”, a redacted version was published.

The report said that “the university was not informed in advance about the
speakers and content of the conference series, as it should have been for
the event to be allowed to go ahead”.

According to the report, Dr Thompson did not highlight that the events
would be controversial or fill out the event booking form with details
about the event. Therefore, “it allowed UCL to be associated with a
particular approach to a controversial issue in a way that was evidently
unbalanced”.

*[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>*