2.3 Qualitative data

The survey provided multiple opportunities for respondents to share their views on the subject overall and in relation to specific questions. This resulted in a high proportion of respondents providing a rich level of detail improving the University’s understanding of this complex topic. Due to the size and volume of respondents written survey answers, the University enlisted a third party, Alterline, who have experience with qualitative data in similar settings to support the analysis.

Summary

• The reasons respondents sought retention and removal of building names varied
• Alumni and members of the wider Bristol community were significantly more likely to favour retention of current building names than members of the University staff or student body

The results from the analysis detailed the different motivations of respondents for their position on renaming. In summary, the themes are:

2.3.1 Concerns around revision or erasure of the past

According to the report, the ‘erasure of history’ argument was a significant concern among Black and Asian respondents, broadly expressing the view that changing names of buildings could be a superficial, purely symbolic act which both prevents more significant action and erodes the collective memory. For some, these building names act as a permanent reminder of the need for debate and for change. For others however, the erasure of building names was seen as a loss to the institutional identity and/or their own personal identity.

2.3.2 Concerns around judging history by modern values

Where viewpoints question the appropriateness of judging historical figures by todays moral standards, these tend to be from respondents that support the retention of existing names. The report states that this viewpoint is often linked to another which emphasises a moral relativism in historical terms, drawing attention for instance to the Fry Family’s activism in abolition.

2.3.3 Need to educate about history of Bristol, the University and building names

The report says that a widespread viewpoint reflected across all areas of the debate is the need to provide information about the University’s historical connections and the individuals its buildings were named. The Renaming Principles reflect the need to ensure that no process of renaming a building can have ‘the effect of erasing history’ and for that reason, and the high lack of awareness among some respondents to the survey about the individuals in question, it is recommended that information should be placed in university buildings regardless of the decision on renaming. Proponents of this viewpoint also recommend that the University should also take steps to educate Bristolians about the city’s history and the part the University has played in it.

2.3.4 Concerns around projecting a safe and welcoming community

The report suggests that comments that raise concerns about how the names of certain buildings can cause students, staff and others to feel unwelcome in the University originate both from those that may experience this personally and others that are not impacted personally but believe others may be. The data suggest that the relationship between those that are impacted and those that seek a name change is more complex. For instance, some that are impacted also wish to see the retention of the name to guard against historical erasure. Nevertheless, responses raise concerns about public perception of the messages the University is projecting.

2.3.5 Debate around whether the extent to any individual’s connection to slavery is significant

Some respondents believe that renaming is an inappropriate response where individuals or families were not directly connected to the slave trade – i.e. neither claiming ownership nor trading in enslaved people. Others expressed the opinion that any connection to the practice of slavery, including the accumulation of wealth used for philanthropy precludes their suitability for the ongoing honour of commemoration.

2.3.6 University’s hypocrisy over its values and disrespect to Black communities

The report states Mixed Ethnicity respondents frequently raised concerns over the hypocrisy of the University. Those advancing this argument believe that the University’s values are not in accordance with the continued commemoration of individuals with connections to the Slave Trade and to maintain the honorific is to disrespect Black communities within the University and across the wider community.

2.3.7 The contemporary impact of commemoration

The impact of ongoing memorialisation of certain figures is a common theme in responses, according to the report. For many the ‘celebration’ of families like the Fry’s and Wills’ has the potential to damage the University’s standing in the long term, and also the reputation of its students and staff, who can be shamed and embarrassed in being asked to defend the University’s actions. The opposing view suggests either that there is no wider institutional impact and that the act of maintaining building names should be seen as either neutral, if the link between the university and the individual has long since lost its significance, or benign, if it is the intent of the University to continue to honour the individual for their contribution.

2.3.8 Capitulation / pandering

Many respondents opposed to name change voice their opposition to what they view as a performative act of capitulation to the demands of a vocal minority in considering name changes, with the suggestion in some cases that temporary, current social pressures are leading the University to make decisions that could have long-term implications on its finances, heritage and standing.

2.3.9 Financial implications of name change

Some respondents questioned the appropriateness of name changes on financial grounds, particularly in light of industrial action among academic staff and the need for investment in other areas. This view reflected two camps - those that wanted instead to focus on the wider, contemporary issues of racism and inequality in the city and those that wanted the University to focus on issues other than ethnicity and the legacies of Bristol’s past.

2.3.10 The importance of the Wills Family

Of particular importance for many was the retention of the Wills name, as both the key benefactor of the University and its Chancellor. In a modern context, some respondents report their personal identity is linked to their respect for the Wills family as a symbol of the University and its buildings, and their active wish to celebrate them for their philanthropic deeds.

2.3.11 A new approach to building names

The report summarised the views of some respondents – both pro-retention and pro-removal - who suggested that the University develop a new approach to naming buildings based on the lessons learnt in this process. In particular, suggestions included naming new building after those that were impacted by slavery, those that have made a significant academic contribution to the University, and individuals from marginalised communities in Bristol.

2.4 Community event, Rose Green Centre

The University arranged a community event which took place on 11 July 2023 to which a range of representatives from the wider Bristol community were invited. Entitled Confronting the Past: Shaping the Future, the roundtable was a facilitated session – see illustrations of both sections of the event on proceeding pages - and its purpose was to consider both the process of renaming and the wider reparative agenda. The event was hosted by Alvin Birdi and Marie-Annick Gournet, speakers included Shawn Sobers, Sathnam Sanghera, Cleo Lake, Leon Tikli and Museji Takolia.

Professor Tikly called for institutional courage from the University and highlighted the key finding of the consultation that a holistic response would be required for the University to play its part in addressing racial disparity in the city of Bristol. He pointed out that Black people remain more likely to go to prison than university and that a reparative future for the city is an educational endeavour in which everyone must participate. He called for research partnerships which focus on understanding the issues facing the Black community, co-commissioned by the community and in which research was done ‘with the people’, rather than ‘on the people’. In addition to the installation of artworks and memorials, Prof. Tikly said the University could choose to make an apology, as Glasgow, Georgetown and Princeton Universities had done, it should decolonise and Africanise the curriculum to signal tangible change and an antiracism agenda.

Cleo Lake’s considered the act of decolonising the curriculum and asked whether the University seeks to teach the need for decolonisation rather than engage in the act. She also spoke about the statue of Henrietta Lacks at Royal Fort House, the first statue of a Black woman, made by a Black woman for a public space in the UK.

Rather than focusing on the names of buildings, Lake said that tracing the promotion of White superiority in academia, and understanding the epistemicide – the subjugation of nonwhite learning methods such as oral history - was more vital. In addition to a land and property audit, an ‘attitude audit’ would be needed to address the structures of power such as the University Court that reinforce inequality.

The University has at its disposal £186.4m of research contracts, buildings that could be used to house the poor, and expertise that could be used to develop citizen-led research in the city and other forms of knowledge production.

Museji Takolia called for the University to restructure the narrative – educating and informing, active engagement locally, nationally and internationally to address inequality, and diversifying its activity. This agenda is more significant and also much more challenging than changing names.

Many of the contributors in the room agreed that the renaming of buildings was a ‘rhetorical exercise’ that failed to recognise more deep-rooted structural issues that would take more financial investment, time and commitment from the University.

A large number of projects were described that could receive support from the University, including the Bristol Afrikan ConneXions Consortium, which needs funding to provide the means for Caribbean communities to develop their own vaccines, equipment and medicine, and the Global Majority Teachers Network, which forges links with the Caribbean Islands to foster a greater understanding of how the educational system has impacted communities.

Others spoke about the structures of power in the city, including the University, Merchant Venturers and Bristol City Council that obstruct the development of a community already decimated by austerity and gentrification. There were calls for a new centre of Black culture in Bristol to collect stories and to celebrate Black joy. There were demands for greater accountability to the community, with suggestions for an oversight body to scrutinise the University’s decisions on pastoral care of its students and staff, research commissioning and community dialogue. Where many spoke of a ‘groundhog day moment’ on which the community is asked to provide testimony without dialogue, speakers called particularly for the voices of young people to be around the strategic table.

2.5 Conclusions from the consultation process

No definitive conclusion as to any specific course of action on renaming is supported by the different sources of engagement and data collected and there is no unanimity on an ethical outcome. Different sections of the University and city community seek different outcomes and reflect sincerely felt moral positions. While there may be no definitive response to the consultation, the exercise has been effective in drawing out these views and was an important step in developing the dialogue with the institution’s stakeholders. The community event took place after the main consultation process was complete, allowing both for those present to make use of the data that had been gathered, and also to develop dialogue beyond the act of renaming. The event would have likely felt uncomfortable for the University at times but overall parties felt heard and that there was opportunity for real change. The attendees of the Rose Green event provided many suggestions for where the University should focus its efforts, outside of renaming; which inform the points laid out later in 4.2.