Is decolonisation within academia truly possible?

The University of Edinburgh has been put under scrutiny this year regarding claims that the institution deeply benefited from colonial wealth and transatlantic slavery, playing a significant role in the development of racist theories such as phrenology. In response, the university conducted a necessary study into its colonial roots, resulting in the publication of the Race Review. The review details the extensive colonial history held by the university as well as ideas for reparative action in an attempt at “decolonising” the institution. Edinburgh’s suggested methods of decolonial action include continuing research, creating safe spaces for ethnic minority groups, facilitating scholarship programmes, and curating educational exhibits.

However, as expected with a task so fraught with complexity, the mission for decolonisation has sparked questions of performativeness and insincerity. Critics have questioned whether these gestures are truly transformative or a mere tickbox for the institution, and other universities alike. Further, critics identify present flaws within the university that undermine their efforts to decolonise, such as complicity in the ongoing exploitation of ethnic minority communities. The process of decolonisation is a justifiably contested one, often raising the question of its true possibility within academia.

According to the BBC, the Edinburgh inquiry uncovered the university’s significant role in the construction of racist theorisation, as well as heavily profiting from slavery

According to the BBC, the Edinburgh inquiry uncovered the university’s significant role in the construction of racist theorisation, as well as heavily profiting from slavery. In reference to the Race Review the BBC stated that the university received at least the equivalent of £30m in “philanthropic gifts,” that can be traced to the profits of colonial commodities such as sugar and cotton. This money then went on to fund bursaries, scholarships, and the construction of university property.

Also unveiled by the review was the discovery that leading thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment promoted theories of racial inferiority and white supremacy while playing a key role in the university’s standing. For instance, it was revealed that Arthur Balfour, a former chancellor of Edinburgh University, played a key role in the creation of Israel. The Guardian reported that in 1917, Balfour stated that the British government was in favour of “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People.” Further, Balfour played a role in “establishing and maintaining a century-long process of imperial and settler-colonial rule in Palestine, resulting today in one of the longest-standing colonial occupations and apartheid regimes in modern history.”

The report’s authors argue that Balfour espoused openly racist views that explained his attitudes towards the Middle East, and had a record of supporting settler colonialism in Ireland, South Africa, and Canada. Edinburgh University’s Principal and Vice-chancellor, Professor Sir Peter Mathieson, pledged to “learn and move forward” from the university’s clear colonial roots. However, due to the significant nature of these roots, it does spark the question: is moving forward truly possible?

Curry points to the structural nature of racism, alluding to the irony of the university being in the ‘business of [decolonisation]’ while still being structured by a racial hierarchy

In response, the University of Edinburgh has displayed their attempts to move on through a series of reparative actions. The most significant being their extensive research project, Race Review, a 130-page document, available to the public, detailing the university’s history of colonialism and ties to slavery. The relevant faculty members of the university are also featured in a video explaining both the contents and purpose of the Race Review, which can be found on the University website.

In the video, Tommy Curry, Co-Chair of the Race Review Research Group, states that the purpose of the review is to “hold the university and its history accountable to how different communities see themselves reflected in not only what’s taught but who’s doing the teaching.” Curry alludes to the university’s active work in tackling the systemic issues of both its past and present – regarding how the university’s ties to colonialism are still represented in its syllabi and faculty. Curry goes on to say that as a ‘black person’, the university’s ties to slavery saddened him due to the suggestion that this view of ‘anti-Blackness’ within academia is not a ‘localised’ phenomenon, but rather one link in a chain of systemic racism. Curry points to the structural nature of racism, alluding to the irony of the university being in the ‘business of [decolonisation]’ while still being structured by a racial hierarchy. Dr Nicola Frith, Co-Chair of the Race Review Research Group, solidifies Curry’s statements by saying that the purpose of the review is to think about how the past continues to influence the present, regarding racial structures.

In addition to the Race Review, the university has stated on their ‘Our Response’ page that their actions toward the matter of decolonisation include: continuing research in how they can better improve the institutional racial climate within higher education, creating community spaces for marginalised racial groups, conducting scholarship programmes for Black and ethnic minority groups, funding educational programmes dedicated to teaching students about their historical links to colonialism, and curating an educational exhibit dedicated to the findings of the Race Review.

The UCU has stated that according to the UN report, the university is ‘directly implicated’ and ‘financially entangled corporations central to Israel’s surveillance regime and military aggression.’ Thus, the university’s attempts towards “decolonisation” now appear selective and thereby performative

Despite their efforts, the University of Edinburgh has been met with criticism and queries regarding the legitimacy of their strive towards change. The BBC stated that there has been criticism from a group of academics who said the University of Edinburgh was “guilty of hypocrisy of the highest order”, due to its ongoing links to the persecution of ethnic minority groups. The group used the examples of the university’s silence on Hong Kong pro-democracy abuses and China’s internment camps for ethnic Uighurs. Another glaring example of the university’s continual involvement in the oppression of racialised groups is their lack of divestment from Israel. According to the University Complicity Database, the University of Edinburgh has a total of £24,707,715 of complicit investments in companies tied to Israel. These include: Albemarle Corp, Alphabet Inc, Amazon, and HSBC. The UCU has stated that according to the UN report, the university is “directly implicated” and “financially entangled corporations central to Israel’s surveillance regime and military aggression”. Thus, the university’s attempts towards “decolonisation” now appear selective and thereby performative.

The process of decolonisation must involve a level of disruption – one that has, so far, only seen by the university’s students

The university’s proposed endeavours towards the matter of decolonisation may not be satisfactory regarding its significant links to systemic racial violence. Further, the university’s ongoing links to mass injustice towards several ethnic minority groups undermine any of their attempts towards decolonisation. The process of decolonisation must involve a level of disruption – one that has, so far, has only been seen by the university’s students.

At the 2025 graduation ceremonies, around 200 students staged protests against the university’s involvement with Israel. Counterfire, ‘a revolutionary socialist organisation’ at the University of Edinburgh, stated that the purpose of the walkouts was to point to the truth: the university is a “colonial institution, from direct involvement with slavery to its deep entanglement in the colonisation of Palestine.” Asserting the claim that the“call for divestment has never been more urgent”. In a video published by the Middle East Eye, students are depicted waving Palestinian flags, walking out of their graduation ceremonies and chanting the phrase “disclose, divest, we will not stop, we will not rest.” These protests point to the university’s unsatisfactory attempt to truly achieve decolonisation. The matter now falls upon the students.

Hence, unless the university is willing to confront their present as deeply as they have confronted their past, how can they expect to attain a decolonised paradigm within academia

The University of Edinburgh’s links to historic colonial violence and slavery have been made public and have been put under clear scrutiny. As an aim to ‘move on’ from their past, the university has produced extensive amounts of research into their colonial roots. In addition to this, the university has vowed to create safer spaces for ethnic minority groups and prioritise their opportunities within higher education. Despite these attempts, critics have reasonably underlined the university’s current involvement in the oppression of ethnic minorities. The most significant being their complicity regarding Israel’s war on Palestine. The university’s lack of divestment has led to a student uprising against the ‘colonial institution’. Hence, unless the university is willing to confront their present as deeply as they have confronted their past, how can they expect to attain a decolonised paradigm within academia?