Re: Complaint by Mr Martin Sewell (ref: MS/4/2014)

Date of complaint: 25/11/14

Article complained of: “Why won’t universities tackle racism head on?”
Published in the Guardian on 22/03/13

1. Throughout this decision, Mr Sewell will be referred to as “the complainant”

and the above mentioned article as “the article”. Guardian News & Media will
be referred to as “GNM”, the former Press Complaints Commission Code as
“the Code”, and the Review Panel as “the Panel”.

The Article

2. The article is a blog piece that appeared on the online edition of GNM’s
education section. The author, Conrad Landing, at the time of publication, was
a student at Cambridge University. The article is essentially a comment piece
on the issue of racism at one of Britain’s leading universities. In support of his
contention that universities are failing to tackle racism head on, the author
cites, as an example, the fact that the complainant, a then supervisor at the
university, had a website containing what some have described as racist and
sexist views.

The Cambridge Student Article (The CS article)

3. The article makes oblique reference to a piece published in TCS on 21 June

2012. The CS article, headlined “Cambridge Economics supervisor criticised
for racist and sexist views”, was entirely about the complainant. During the
course of the CS article, a representative of the Cambridge University
Students’ Union (CUSU) provides two quotes. One quote (the subject of
complaint to the former PCC) is as follows

"Obviously, an individual who expresses such deeply racist views,

such deeply sexist views and who explicitly endorses national
socialism cannot remain as a supervisor for Cambridge students:
Cambridge is a diverse, multicultural community which stands
against - and, indeed, refutes -everything he stands for.”

The authors of the CS article contacted the complainant for comment. Some
of his comments are reproduced in the piece.

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office : Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
The decision of the former Press Complaints Commission (the PCC)

4. Following publication of the CS article, the complainant complained to the

PCC under clause 1 of the Code. The complaint, fell broadly into three
categories.

5. First he complained that the allegation made by the CUSU spokesperson that
some of the content of his website was racist and sexist was inaccurate. This
complaints were unsuccessful.

6. Secondly, the complainant complained that the allegation of “National

Socialism” attributed to the unnamed CUSU spokesperson was inaccurate.
The PCC upheld this aspect of the complaint, stating

“The Commission first re-considered the claim that the complainant

"explicitly endorsed National Socialism". This was an extremely
serious allegation. Whilst it had been attributed to the CUSU official,
the newspaper had an obligation to ensure that it was not
misleading readers by publishing the claim. The Commission did
not accept that the claim was substantiated by material on the
complainant's website; the reference to sources who had been
criticised for their alleged sympathy with National Socialist ideas did
not amount to an "explicit endorsement" of the ideology. In contrast
to the examples contained in the article of the complainant's alleged
"racist" and "sexist" comments, no such examples had been
provided regarding the National Socialism allegation. The
Commission found that the publication of the bald claim raised a
breach of Clause 1 (i), and the newspaper was therefore obliged to
offer a remedy that would be sufficient to comply with Clause 1 (ii).”

7. A third, minor complaint in relation to the description of the complainant within

the CS article as an “Economics supervisor” was dismissed as not being
“significantly misleading”. As a result, the CS published a clarification and
then later, after a further complaint by the complainant as to the wording of
the clarification, published a link to the PCC decision.

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office : Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
The Complaint under Clause 1

8. Clause 1 of the Code states,

 
“Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be

corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology
published. In cases involving the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the
PCC in advance.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment,
conjecture and fact.

iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for
defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise,
or an agreed statement is published.”

9. Following the partial success of his complaint to the PCC, the complainant
complained to the Reader’s Editor (RE). He now complains to the Panel,
having been dissatisfied with the outcome of the RE procedure.
 
10. The complainant takes issue with the following quote from the article  

“Only last year, Martin Sewell, an economics lecturer [sic] at

Cambridge, came under fire from national media after students
discovered Nazi imagery on his website.”  

11. The online publication of the article now bears an amendment dated 29
October 2014, correcting the complainant’s status as quoted above, to
supervisor rather than lecturer.
 
12. His complaint to the Panel is again, under clause 1 of the Code (set out
above). The complainant contends that the above quote from the article is
inaccurate. In his completed application form to the Panel dated 25/11/14, the
complainant asserts  

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office : Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
 “It was not the case that students discovered Nazi imagery, the
story was contrived by The Cambridge Student/CUSU and
manufactured in the offices of CUSU, by their own admission. Even
if students had discovered Nazi imagery, they would have noticed
that the point was to give negative connotations to political
correctness, University of Cambridge students are not stupid. The
article in The Cambridge Student [1] made no mention of Nazi
imagery. The only Nazi imagery that exists on my web site is on
the page dedicated to Political Correctness [3] and is given clear
context as I write ‘Political correctness (PC) is the third great evil
arising from Western civilization in the last century.’ In other words,
it is clearly implied that I consider Nazis to be evil.”  

Discussion

No “students” complained

13. It is clear from a reading of the PCC decision that the complainant’s allegation
that TCS and CUSU colluded against him were rejected. The PCC stated on
this issue

“While the Commission noted that the complainant remained of the

view that the newspaper had failed to substantiate its position that
complaints had been made by students about his writing, the
newspaper had provided a signed statement from the individual
who had been quoted anonymously in the article as a CUSU
official, who confirmed that students had "expressed concerns
about [the] material". Further, the Commission noted that the
complainant accepted that his views were controversial and that
"political correctness" was part of the "climate of the West that we
currently live in". The Commission could identify no substantive
reason to doubt that students had raised concerns of the kind
outlined in the article and concluded that no breach of Clause 1 was
established on this point.”  

14. Similarly, in relation the article with which the Panel is concerned, the author
is entitled to take at face value the claim in the CS article that students first
raised complaints in relation to the content on the complainant’s website.

 
15. Finally, on this issue it is clear from a reading of the CS article that the CUSU
spoke to TCS “Following complaints”. It was therefore safe for the author of
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office : Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
 this article to conclude that the complaints referred to, came from members of
the student population. The Panel therefore finds that it was not inaccurate for
the article to refer to “students” in the quote complained of.

TCS did not refer to Nazi imagery  

16. The Panel can see no reason for the author to be precluded from mentioning
Nazi imagery in his piece, simply because that was not specifically referred to
by TCS. Indeed, the Panel sees the merit in using the phrase “Nazi imagery”
rather than repeating the unsubstantiated allegation of “national socialism”.
The latter allegation of course being the subject of successful challenge to the
PCC. The Panel is therefore of the view that this aspect of the complaint is not
substantiated.

Nazi imagery  

17. At the top of the Political Correctness page on the Complainant’s website
there is a picture of Adolph Hitler holding a flag bearing the swastika. Above
Hitler’s head is the symbol of the Third Reich. In the background there can be
seen a sea of soldiers all wearing Nazi uniform and some holding flags
bearing the swastika. The Panel is of the unanimous view that this picture is
accurately described as a Nazi image. Therefore, when the author states as a
matter of fact that the Complainant’s website contains Nazi imagery, this is, in
the view of the Panel, accurate.

The article suggests that the complainant is a Nazi sympathiser  

18. This particular allegation by the complainant does not strictly speaking fall
under clause 1 of the Code. It is, in reality a complaint that the words
complained of are defamatory of the complainant by suggesting he is a Nazi
sympathiser. The Panel reminds itself that its remit is to adjudicate upon
matters falling within the Code only. However, the Panel notes that the words
complained of in their common sense and natural meaning, do not suggest
that the complainant is a Nazi sympathiser. It merely states as a matter of
fact, that Nazi imagery was found by students on the complainant’s website.

Decision  

19. For the reasons set out above, the Panel unanimously dismisses the
complaint against the article.
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office : Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
SIGNED

Chair:

Panel member:
Panel Member: Elinor Goodman
Dated: 13th February 2015

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office : Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG