In our previous module, our class read The Charismatic Lecturer in session, which was about two lecturers, Stephanie and Max. The latter was framed as a ‘charismatic lecturer’, versus the description of Stephanie which referenced her engagement with the Church of England (or something similar) (Macfarlane 2004). An interesting discussion unfolded about our own implicit biases, but there seemed to be a class preference for Max. One colleague described Stephanie’s penchant for religion as undermining her credentials. Of course, this thinking is supposed to be unacceptable under the Equity Act, but yet Higher Education (HE) and its foundational principles of rationality are underpinned by secularism. This concept is complicated. In decolonial and critical race theory, secularism and rationality was not devoid of religion, but rather, its introduction through modernity and the Enlightenment was shaped by Christianity. Appiah makes mention of this, citing Columbus and how the history of Christianity is the history of people killing each other (Appiah 2014). Perhaps less explicit in that video was that Christianity served as a justifying moral principle to propel colonialism, and moreover, that our concept of Man and humanity overrepresents an Anglo-European version of personhood that was built from displacing a relation between God and Man onto Self and (Racialised) Other (see Wynter 2003). Equality and human rights, in my cynical purview, were always precarious principles, although I am terrified to see how fragile they actually were/are.
I was frustrated to watch the video from Trinity University where the interview subject described how he had to laugh and display images of his daughter to prove that he was normal. I noticed that the YouTube video did not even include a name for the interviewee (Trinty University 2016). I’m so sick of not being enraged, of controlling my behaviour, because dehumanising people is a violent act, so why wouldn’t it be met with reactions that identified and mirrored that? `
Back to the introductory point: secularism is what underpins the university, and this was evidenced in Rekis’s research about epistemic injustice/exclusion. It was an illuminating essay that made me think deeply about my own assumptions of religious testimony in the classroom, and made me recall a seminar experience where two students began to debate issues around gender, sex, and sexuality through religion: specifically, Christianity and Islam. I tried to steer the conversation away from religion, as I reminded the students this was not a theology class, but Rekis maps out how religious experience has been excluded in the academy as a form of epistemic injustice, so now I’m wondering whether religious approaches should be legitimised in Cultural Studies as decoloniality also acknowledges other worldviews. No clear answers on my end, just more questions though (Rekis 2023).
Works Cited
Appiah, K.A. (2014) ‘Is religion good or bad? (This is a trick question). YouTube [Online] 16 June 2014. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2et2KO8gcY. [Accessed 12 May 2025]
Macfarlane, B. (2004) Teaching with Integrity: The Ethics of Higher Education Practice. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Rekis, J. (2023) ‘Religious Identity and Epistemic Injustice: An Intersectional Account’, Hypatia 38: pp. 779-800.
Trinty University (2016) ‘Challenging Race, Religion, and Stereotypes in the Classroom’, YouTube [Online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CAOKTo_DOk [Accessed on 12 May 2025]
Wynter, S. (2003) ‘Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation – An Argument’, CR: The New Centennial Review 3, 3: pp. 257-337.
5 replies on “IP Blog Task 2: On Religion and Faith”
Christin, you raise important questions about implicit bias and the often-unquestioned authority of secular rationality, particularly when viewed through decolonial and critical race theory lenses. Your tension between maintaining professionalism and expressing justified anger is especially resonant, it speaks to the emotional labour that marginalised individuals often carry in these spaces. The way you connect Rekis’s work on epistemic injustice to real classroom experiences invites a much-needed interrogation of whose knowledge is legitimised in academic discourse. Your post doesn’t offer easy answers, but it opens up essential dialogue, thanks for sharing it with such honesty. How are you thinking about applying these reflections in your future teaching or research practice?
Honestly, my programmed instinct is to probably reiterate a Cultural Studies approach that says theology has no place in the classroom. In our previous dissertations, we had a student trying to apply spiritual frameworks, but thought it was not a legitimate approach. I might try to build research on this further before applying it to teaching, I don’t even know how I would approach the research design though. I wonder if aligning religious belief as a ‘culture’ might be the way…although I have no idea what that looks like! Thank you for your thoughtful and provocative comment Romany.
Christin, a very interesting blog post. I’m particularly interested in your comments about trying to steer the conversation in class away from religion. I can relate how difficult this can be, that at times a conversation can go into an unplanned for area, where one might feel unprepared. It becomes even harder when there is a lesson that has been planned and needs to be delivered within a particular timeframe. I also understand that restricting discussions on religion can be seen as a form of injustice.
With all of this in mind, I wonder is there a space within your teaching framework to have a kind of anything goes session? Where students feel able to align your delivery to what matters to them, as a discussion?
UAL is increasingly unwilling to take a stance on global atrocities, so it would be interesting to consider what the future of free speech means in this institution.
Thank you for your comment Danny, and the questions. This year has been a fraught year for discussions, as for the first time, I have heard opposing views come to a head (students distressed). We are living in polarising times, and it seems necessary to use the classroom as a space for discussion. I think I should bring some ‘brave space’ rules into future spaces, as it encourages tensions without being disrespectful or explosive. Your last point illuminates this glaring UAL hypocrisy: a decolonising agenda versus this problematic elision between religion and nationalism (i.e. that anti-Zionism means anti-semitism). How have we got here?
Thank you, Christin, for a thoughtful post. I appreciate the back-and-forth discussion and perspectives that you approach throughout the post. Your honesty about the complexity in navigating religious expression in academic spaces is very thought-provoking and reminds me how easy it is to try and control the direction of a conversation when possible tensions can arise between students. I appreciate you musing through ideas even though you don’t have the answers as this shows genuine consideration for possible development and best practice.
I just want to end this with I feel you must be a fantastic Cultural Studies lecturer as I am leaning so much from you, and I hope that you are able to deliver classes and topics in a way that also inspires you.