Dr. Calbert Graham, a Black scholar, filed a race discrimination lawsuit against Cambridge University after being denied an interview for a position. Graham claims that by mentioning his connection to the Windrush immigration scandal in his application, the university was aware of his racial background.
Despite being recognized by Cambridge during Black History Month, four senior professors chose not to advance him to the interview stage, prompting his legal action, he said, according to Daily Mail.
Dr. Graham accused the four Cambridge professors of racial bias after they didn’t shortlist him for a job interview. However, an employment tribunal ruled that the panel, trained in unconscious bias, couldn’t be certain of Dr. Graham’s race based on his Windrush reference, as not only Black individuals were affected by the scandal.
RELATED STORIES
The tribunal concluded that Graham, a “scholar of some distinction,” had simply not met the application criteria.
The tribunal reviewed Dr. Graham’s case, noting his dual British and Jamaican nationality and his reputation as an “outstanding” academic.
A linguistics expert, Dr. Graham has served as a senior research associate in Cambridge’s Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics since 2014. In 2018, he was recognized as a “Black researcher shaping the future” for Black History Month.
In May 2022, Dr. Graham was among 53 applicants vying for an assistant professor position in second language education at Cambridge.
He said he was “not at all worried about meeting the basic requirements for the job, because the advertised job is precisely I’ve been doing for the last 13 years,” it was heard.
The tribunal learned that days before the selection, Professor Linda Fisher, a committee member, likely saw Dr. Graham’s photo in an email exchange, indicating his race.
The job application emphasized a commitment to promoting equality, diversity, and inclusion.
In his application, Dr. Graham said “As someone affected in a very personal way by Windrush, I am a passionate advocate of a fairer society for all.”
Dr. Graham also said: “I was honoured to have had my research achievements formally recognised as ‘future shaping’ by the University of Cambridge in 2018. This was later featured as part of the 2018 Black History Month celebration of cutting edge and impactful research being conducted at Cambridge.”
His application also stated his undergraduate degree from the University of the West Indies. The selection committee, consisting of Professors Fisher, Ricardo Sabates Aysa, Andreas Stylianides, and Yongcan Liu, completed online training on “Equality & Diversity” and “Understanding Unconscious/Implicit Bias.”
Despite acknowledging Dr. Graham as an “excellent scholar,” the committee concluded that he did not meet the essential criteria required for the position.
At the tribunal, Prof Fisher “accepted more than once that one could potentially infer from the application that Dr Graham is black” but said “it was not at the forefront of her mind.”
Dr. Graham claimed that conscious racial bias influenced the selection process, with his lawyer arguing that the committee was aware of his race upon receiving his application but attempted to conceal it.
Despite raising grievances and appealing, Graham was not granted an interview for the position.
Employment Judge Roger Tynan dismissed his race discrimination claims, noting that while there were “undoubtedly indicators” of Dr. Graham’s race, the committee could not be certain and had not demonstrated bias.
Judge Tynan said: “We think it highly unwise to assume anything about a person’s race from the University they attended as an undergraduate.
“To do so would be to fail to have regard to racial diversity within academic institutions and the countries and regions from which they draw their students.
“As regards Dr Graham’s reference to Black History Month, the study of and research into issues of race and racial identity are plainly not the exclusive preserve of those who are black, of colour or might otherwise identify as BAME.
“As we explored [at tribunal], a person might be personally affected by Windrush in myriad ways, for example through their partner or partner’s family, or because their parent or other close relative is in a relationship with someone directly affected by Windrush.
“We are amply satisfied that the shortlisting was a collaborative exercise involving four independent-minded academics who were accustomed to and comfortable with group decision making structures and practices.’
Dr. Graham, who described Professor Fisher as the “villain of the piece” and the “architect of all this misery,” lost his claim of victimization related to making a protected disclosure. He also withdrew a complaint regarding disability discrimination.
