Search

This paper reflects on the first five years of the Changing University Cultures (CHUCL) collective, which conducted equality and diversity projects in four English universities between 2015 and 2020. We explore how CHUCL has been used in the service of institutional polishing (Ahmed, S. 2012. "On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life." Duke University Press, 143) and airbrushing (Phipps, A. 2020b. "Reckoning Up: Sexual Harassment and Violence in the Neoliberal University." "Gender & Education" 32 (2), 230-233), how our reports have become non-performatives (Ahmed, S. 2012. "On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life." Duke University Press, 90), and how our findings have been weaponised in the service of institutional interests. We are two of three white middle-class women who constitute the CHUCL collective; we situate this retrospective within critical reflections on our positionality and an abolitionist theorisation of the institution. We conclude that we have often been the master's tools, and while we join the work of imagining alternatives, we must build capacity for survival within the master's house.

This article contributes to conversations on hospitality in educational settings, with a focus on higher education and the online context. We integrate Derrida's ethics of hospitality framework with a focus on practices of hospitality, including its affective and material, embodied dimension (Zembylas: Stud Philos Educ 39:37-50, 2019). This article offers empirical examples of practices of what we termed 'virtual academic hospitality': during a series of online collaborative and cross borders workshops with teachers of English based in the Gaza Strip (Palestine), we performed academic hospitality through virtual convivial rituals and the sharing of virtual gifts, which are illustrated here. We propose a revision of the concept of academic hospitality arguing that: firstly, academic hospitality is not limited to intellectual conversations; secondly, that the relationship between hospitality and mobility needs to be revised, since hospitality mediated by the technological medium can be performed, and technology may even stretch hospitality towards the unreachable 'unconditional hospitality' theorised by Derrida (Of hospitality: Anne Dufourmantelle invited Jacques Derrida to respond. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2000); and thirdly, that indigenous epistemics, with their focus on the affective, may offer alternative understandings of conviviality within the academy. These points may contribute to the collective development of a new paradigmatic understanding of hospitality, one which integrates Western and indigenous traditions of hospitality, and which includes the online environment.

This paper situates sexual harassment and violence in the neoliberal university. Using data from a 'composite ethnography' representing twelve years of research, I argue that institutional inaction on these issues reflects how they are 'reckoned up' in the context of gender and other structures. The impact of disclosure is projected in market terms: this produces "institutional airbrushing" which protects both the institution and those (usually privileged men) whose welfare is bound up with its success. Staff and students are differentiated by "power/value" relations, which interact with gender and intersecting categories. Survivors are often left with few alternatives to speaking out in the 'outrage economy' of the corporate media: however, this can support institutional airbrushing and bolster punitive technologies. I propose the method of Grounded Action Inquiry, implemented with attention to Lorde's work on anger, as a parrhesiastic practice of 'speaking in' to the neoliberal institution.

In the context of renewed debates and interest in this area, this paper reframes the theoretical agenda around laddish masculinities in UK higher education, and similar masculinities overseas. These can be contextualised within consumerist neoliberal rationalities, the neoconservative backlash against feminism and other social justice movements, and the postfeminist belief that women are winning the "battle of the sexes". Contemporary discussions of "lad culture" have rightly centred sexism and men's violence against women: however, we need a more intersectional analysis. In the UK a key intersecting category is social class, and there is evidence that while working-class articulations of laddism proceed from "being dominated" within alienating education systems, middle-class and elite versions are a reaction to "feeling dominated" due to a loss of gender, class and race privilege. These are important differences, and we need to know more about the conditions which shape and produce particular performances of laddism, in interaction with masculinities articulated by other social groups. It is perhaps unhelpful, therefore, to collapse these social positions and identities under the banner of "lad culture", as has been done in the past.