What the Baftas incident teaches us about psychological safety in universities

The incident involving John Davidson, Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo at the Baftas ceremony prompted me to reflect on situations in which facilitating a student’s access entitlements can affect another student’s well-being and participation. This was brought into sharp focus when John, who has Tourette’s – a syndrome characterised by involuntary vocal and motor tics – shouted a racial slur while Michael and Delroy, two Black actors, were on stage presenting an award. Their shock was obvious and completely understandable, and it is to their immense credit that they carried on, after a very brief pause, with absolute dignity and composure.

John has made strenuous efforts, at great personal cost, to make it clear that he does not hold the racist views encapsulated in perhaps the most offensive word that could have come out of his mouth. The way it landed was predictable in that it caused offence and hurt. My empathy muscles flexed towards everyone caught up in the situation, with John, Michael and Delroy at the heart of my concern, and ripples radiating through the Baftas audience and those watching at home.

The profound impact for Black people is obvious, given what that horrible word symbolised historically and still today, and I thought about Black students I have worked with over the years and the violence that word represents for them. I also thought about the many disabled students with whom I have worked and specifically those with Tourette’s. John’s mortification about what happened also merits compassion. He showed up at the ceremony as his whole self and had no alternative option available to him even if he had wanted it. Had John’s tics involved yelling “biscuit” or “clarinet” or some such innocuous utterance, the audience would probably have been amused. People with the condition will be used to being made fun of – and far worse –  their whole lives. There is no doubt that attitudes towards Tourette’s slam doors in people’s faces. It’s called ableism.

How can we create psychological safety on campus?

University is about opening doors as wide as we can for a diverse range of students and staff and delivering equity of opportunity. Equity is not about treating everyone the same; it is about giving everyone an equal chance. What would I do if in my classroom a student with Tourette’s shouted out the N-word, to the horror of their classmates? That scenario represents a wicked problem with multiple facets. 

The guiding principles governing higher education centre around belonging, community and opportunity – at university everybody should feel safe and that they belong. But psychologically safe communities are not created by accident, and the most effective approach is proactive rather than reactive. That is to say, even if the student with Tourette’s had not told anyone about their condition in advance, it would be fairly obvious pretty quickly. The expertise and sensitivity of disability and equity practitioners would be mobilised and a plan would be negotiated with the student. 

They might wish to inform their peers and lecturers that tics will happen, and that these cannot be controlled and in no way reflect conscious cognitive processes or underlying attitudes. They may wish to create a personal statement to share with people of their choosing, or have a conversation with a small group of peers who could ask questions without fear of judgement. I would encourage the involvement of the student union as well, because community-building is more effective with peers on board. 

• Spotlight guide: Make good mental health a university priority
• Building a culture of care to support students’ mental health
• Rethinking neurodiversity in higher education

A university culture built on compassion, empathy and respect for everyone’s inherent dignity does not happen without senior leadership buy-in and careful thought about celebrating and accommodating diversity. An Equality Impact Assessment is a powerful tool here. This involves examining policy, practice and procedure for potential negative impacts on anyone whose characteristics are covered by the Equality Act 2010 (sexual orientation, disability and race are examples). Examining is the starting point, amending comes next and student involvement in the process is vital. Advance HE’s Disabled Student Commitment and Race Equality Charter are also useful initiatives. Intersectionality is an important consideration because nobody’s identity can be boiled down to a single characteristic.

A word of caution: even if universities generate a mountain of high-quality policy documents focused on equity and informed by the student voice, it would still be necessary to flex, adapt and respond if something like the Baftas debacle happened on campus. Demonising John, a person with Tourette’s who was not in control of his words, or expecting Michael and Delroy and others who experienced his outburst as an act of violence to just swallow their emotions would not be the answer. In a higher education context, we would create opportunities to talk about it and to acknowledge feelings rather than look for someone to scapegoat. The ceremony was not broadcast live so the word could have been removed – someone dropped a ball there. But focusing on that terrible mistake does not move anything forward.

There is no quick fix for situations where supporting one student’s access entitlement can unintentionally affect another student’s well-being or participation. We must nurture a culture that values and respects diversity, focuses on dignity and compassion and engages in open discussion when thorny – and sometimes very sad – situations arise.

Nicola Martin is professor of social justice and inclusive education at London South Bank University.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.