A university society has apologised after publicity material for a debate over "political correctness gone too far" featured a picture of a golliwog.
The material prompted one of the four debaters, Fred Mackintosh, an advocate and a teaching fellow at Edinburgh University's Centre For Professional Legal Studies, to boycott the event. He said the use of the golliwog was "puerile and ill-considered".
Debate organisers said it was used only as "an example of what many consider a highly offensive caricature". However, they decided yesterday to withdraw a publicity banner containing the image.
Mr Mackintosh was one of two debaters due to appear at the Edinburgh University Debates Union event next Wednesday to oppose a motion that "this house believes that political correctness has gone too far" . The other was Edinburgh Central MSP Marco Biagi.
But Mr Mackintosh decided to withdraw from the debate after taking offence at the publicity material and others were reported to have decided to boycott the event.
Mr Mackintosh told students he had wanted to take part in the event to have a "liberal voice" contribute to the debate and was disappointed to be withdrawing.
He said: "Our liberal society has come a long way in the way it has recognised diversity and sought to avoid stereotyping, but there is still a lot to do.
"I choose to conclude that inclusion of a golliwog in the publicity material is simply puerile and ill-considered, rather than something more sinister, and I hope it is not indicative of a widespread lack of consideration for others within Edinburgh University Students' Association.
"However, I do not wish to be associated with such an event and those who prepared the publicity for this debate could do well to consider the need to treat others as they would wish to be treated."
The golliwog began as a black character in children's books in the late 19th century before being reproduced as a toy. The caricature image is considered by many to be racially offensive.
Edinburgh University law under-graduate Marlena Valles, a member of the debates committee who defended the use of the golliwog, was at the centre of a Glasgow University debating row in March. She and another debater, Rebecca Meredith, claimed they were subjected to sexist abuse.
Ms Valles told Mr Mackintosh: "I can assure you the use of the golliwog was an example of what many consider a highly offensive caricature, but is continually defended on the grounds it is 'tradition' and 'a joke'.
"Discussing the golliwog as an example of how children's cartoons can be used to perpetuate dangerous racial stereotypes is key to the motion and relevant to the debates that happen seasonally in the Netherlands over 'sinterklaas', for instance.
"I recognise that for many people the image of the golliwog is deeply distressing, but I want to stress that an image in a debates poster is never an endorsement, but is a literal illustration of the consequences of the sides of the debate."
Edinburgh University Debates Union convenor Euan McPherson said after listening to feedback it was decided the banner would be changed. He added: "We regret the image caused offence to some people, that was never our intention.
"Many consider the golliwog a highly offensive doll yet there continues to be a portion of society who believes its continual use to be appropriate.
"We understand the majority of those who commented feel there is no debate to be had not just on that issue but also political correctness as a whole. This is not the case beyond the university community - both the golliwog and political correctness are debated regularly in the national press. That is why we are holding our debate."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article