Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 10749-21 Sokal v kentlive.news
Summary
of Complaint
1. Alan
Sokal complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
kentlive.news breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
an article headlined “University of Kent debunks claims students made to take
'white privilege' course”, published on 29th September 2021.
2. The
article reported that the “University of Kent [had] debunk[ed] claims [that]
students [were] made to take 'white privilege' course”. It went on to state
that “[t]he module, called Expect Respect, is neither compulsory nor solely
focused on the concept of white privilege, which seeks to highlight how white
people are not subject to the same, often very regular racial discrimination as
other ethnic and racial backgrounds”. It reported that articles in two other
national newspapers implied that students were being made to take the module,
but that a University of Kent spokesperson had addressed these claims. The
article stated, “that whilst participation was encouraged, it is by no means
mandatory, and not taking the course would not result in any kind of
punishment”, including a quote from the spokesperson who said that “[w]hile we
would like as many students as possible to take the module, nobody would face
action for not doing so”.
3. The
complainant said that the headline of the article was inaccurate in breach of
Clause 1 because the previously published claims the article purported to
“debunk” were in fact true, and the University had indeed told every student to
complete the online course. To support his position, the complainant provided a
number of pages from the University of Kent website which dated from July 2018
to August 2021, which referred to the module as being compulsory. One stated
“[t]he Expect Respect module is a compulsory module for all registered students
at the University of Kent, regardless of what you are studying or whether you
are an undergraduate or postgraduate student”. The complainant added that he
had made the publication aware of the University of Kent webpages prior to
complaining to IPSO, and that it should have issued a correction after he had
done so.
4. The
complainant also said that the article was misleading to state that “it was
clarified that whilst participation was encouraged, it is by no means
mandatory, and not taking the course would not result in any kind of
punishment” and to include the spokesperson’s statement that “[w]hile we would
like as many students as possible to take the module, nobody would face action
for not doing so”. He said that while the statements were technically true, the
article concealed other relevant information about the University’s stance on
the course, such as its website references to the module being compulsory,
rendering the article misleading.
5. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1 and said that it had taken care
regarding the accuracy of the information included in the article. It said that
it had contacted the University for comment and provided the email response
where the spokesperson had said “[w]hile we would like as many students as
possible to take the module, nobody would face action for not doing so”. It
highlighted that the reporter’s approach to the University included a reference
to a “debunking article about these reports”, which the University raised no concern
about and did not dispute. The publication added that the University did not
state at any point to the publication that it had changed its policy from
“compulsory” to optional.
6. The
publication added that upon IPSO launching its investigation, it contacted the
University again to confirm that the module was not compulsory. It provided the
University’s response, in which the University spokesperson confirmed that the
module was not compulsory, and it was working on clarifying its own “comms”
around this. The publication added that while the University websites may
contradict what the spokesperson had said, it was not the responsibility of the
publication that the websites needed updating.
Relevant
Code Provisions
Clause 1
(Accuracy)
i) The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected,
promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology
published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the
regulator.
iii) A
fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings
of the Committee
7. The
Committee recognised that the matters under complaint related to a contentious
issue, and that there appeared to be contradictory communications regarding the
University’s position on the module. It was the Committee’s role to determine
whether the publication had taken care over the accuracy of the information
included in the article, and whether the article included any significant
inaccuracies in need of correction.
8. The
Committee first considered the complainant’s concerns that it was inaccurate to
claim the University of Kent had “debunk[ed]” claims made in two other national
newspapers that students were required to take the course. The publication had
provided email correspondence in which the reporter approached the University
spokesperson for comment, and the spokesperson had said “[w]hile we would like
as many students as possible to take the module, nobody would face action for
not doing so”. In addition, upon receipt of the complaint, the publication
contacted the University again and asked in unambiguous terms whether or not
the course was compulsory; the publication received a response in the negative.
The Committee acknowledged that the University websites provided by the
complainant stated that the module was compulsory, which appeared to contradict
what the University spokesperson had said. It was the Committee’s view,
however, that where the spokesperson had made clear that students would not
face action for not taking the module, it was not significantly inaccurate to
characterise this as the University of Kent having “debunk[ed]” claims [the]
students [were] made to take 'white privilege' course”. The University was best
placed to comment on its policy around the module, and the publication was
entitled to rely on the University’s most recent statement on this matter. The
publication had taken sufficient care over this claim by approaching the
University for comment, and the Committee was satisfied there was no breach of
Clause 1 on this point.
9. The
Committee then turned to the complainant’s concern that it was misleading to
state that “it was clarified that whilst participation was encouraged, it is by
no means mandatory, and not taking the course would not result in any kind of
punishment” and to include the spokesperson’s statement that “[w]hile we would
like as many students as possible to take the module, nobody would face action
for not doing so”. The complainant was concerned that the article had omitted
other relevant information, such as the University webpages he had provided.
While the omission of relevant information can render an article misleading or
inaccurate, the Committee did not consider that this was the case in this
instance. The article reported on the University’s present stance on students’
obligation to take a module, making clear that this was based on the
spokesperson’s statement. The publication had taken sufficient care over the
information included in the article, by approaching the University for comment
and publishing its response. It was not in dispute that the statement from the
University spokesperson was accurately reported. No significant inaccuracy
arose from reporting this, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
Conclusion(s)
10. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
11. N/A
Date
complaint received: 12/10/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/03/2022
Back to ruling listing