The point has been made elsewhere that the "culture of respect for people and opinions" striven for has been undermined by the recent poster campaign, but perhaps the ultimate irony lays in the specific relation of the campaign to the strike by the very sector dissed by the offensive poster in question.
Nor is it clear from the Monday Paper article whether the "inclusive learning and work environment" extends merely to those who are registered students or staff formally on the University's payroll, or those others who also work on this Campus but whose membership of the "University Community" is sometimes disputed.
If it includes the latter, could someone please explain how - despite the existence of a Code of Conduct which promises the defence of dignity - head cleaners still come to be referred to as "head girls" or "head boys" by their employers? I'd thought that the infantalising of black adults would have no place in a transforming institution.