Anglo-Saxon Studies [Early English Studies], Academia and White Supremacy
By: M. Rambaran-Olm
Tags: Academia, English Literature, English History, Racism, History

The first time I read Beowulf, I was hooked. Set against an ominous backdrop, the flawed hero immortalized for his pride just as much as his courage piqued my interest along with the complexity and foreignness of the archaic language in which the poem is told. It’s like that for a lot of us: One spark starts our journey into academe. That was nearly two decades ago. Today I am one of the only active scholars of color specializing in Early medieval England* in the native-English speaking world. I’ve struggled to prove my worth as a scholar, as my skin color constantly impedes on how I am perceived and in turn what I am capable of achieving. Additionally, I’ve watched as other colleagues of color leave the field. In a field laid claim to by white supremacists, this is a tragedy.

Over the past few years and with alarming frequency, medieval images have been turned into memes, and posted without context on white supremacist websites and social media. One recent example from the website Stormfront proposed a quixotic connection between swastikas and ‘Anglo-Saxons.’ Also on the neo-Nazi website, we find Beowulf grouped with other “western” texts as essential reading. The poem, they believe, links them to a supposed warrior past.** While these posts and the pernicious ideas behind them proliferate, medievalists of early England and our organizational leadership have largely remained silent over the years. One reason for this silence: The field is just too white.

Why is the field so white? Historically, Early English studies was perceived, taught and studied within an Empirical framework which most often created an implicit bias surrounding ‘British’ origins. The perpetuated false narrative continues to prevent students of color from connecting with the texts, and in short, drives away both students and scholars of color — people who, like me, grow tired of constantly being asked to justify their existence in a field assumed to belong to white people. The same bias is not present in disciplines like African American studies, which boasts of a diverse scholarly community.

I have been told many times I “do not look like an ‘Anglo-Saxonist.’” I’ve even been told after a campus interview, by the chair of a hiring committee (for a job I didn’t get) that the deciding factor against me was the department’s struggle to “justify to their students that [I] was an ‘Anglo-Saxonist.’” My primary area of expertise and the majority of my work concentrates on Anglo-Saxon studies [now early English studies], so what other justification is necessary? Worse, I have witnessed a handful of competent people of color leave early English studies because they believed there was no room for visible minorities to work in the field.

Even the few, barebones opportunities to support diverse scholars are being squandered. The International Society of Anglo-Saxonists (ISAS) has upwards of 700 members. No official stats are available, but judging from the members list, one might generously estimate between 2–3 percent of present members are non-white. At the group’s biannual meeting in Hawaii last year, Dr. Adam Miyashiro, a native Hawaiian, proposed to discuss the ways that Beowulf yields specific readings that continue to be used by white supremacists. He was turned down by organizers. Although many good proposals are turned down — this decision, understandable in the abstract — takes on a different character in a field that consistently shuts out diverse voices. The conversation of race is continuously shifted into the hands of white scholars, even in fields like early English studies which is one of the least equipped fields to discuss critical race theory in relation to its literature and history. Miyashiro (who gave me permission to share his story) and I are not alone in having experienced exclusion, but we are increasingly alone in the field. This is not just about individuals losing out on positions because competition is high, rather there are guardians and gate-keepers on hiring committees committed to keeping the field white. Demonstrably, merit has no meaning.

By and large, this gate-keeping has been the modus operandi for specialists of early English studies. Silence or resistance to acknowledge scholars of color reinforces ever present white supremacy. Silence makes one complicit, but, on the same hand, so do empty words and undertaking zero practical measures to counter racism. There is nothing structurally available for scholars of color in our field and no movement within academia to work on eliminating racism. People are leaving, deciding to pivot, changing careers, and choosing to never study early English studies or related material because racism is prevalent in our field. Recent attempts to address racism in my field have been done without PoC voices (apart from a number of vulnerable and brave grad students and early career researchers), as was reflected at ISAS 2017. Additionally, when we are present, the people with institutional power are absent as was evident in the abysmal representation of senior scholars for panels centering MoC (Medievalists of Color) voices and emphasizing race-related issues in the field at the Modern Language Association (MLA) Congress 2018 in NYC. (Spoiler alert: no senior-level scholars of early English studies attending the conference were present for those sessions, particularly session 491.)

The situation in early English studies is not isolated. Plagued by Euro-centrism, Medieval Studies as a whole continues to stumble along in attempts to address ‘otherness’. This was evidenced during last year’s controversy involving the tone-deaf white scholar’s ‘joke’ about ‘otherness’ during the plenary at the annual International Medieval Congress in Leeds. Scholars of color are not just walking away from plenary talks in disgust, they are completely walking away from the field.