A senior lecturer at St Andrews University, where Prince William and Catherine met as students, has lost a high-profile race discrimination case after being reprimanded for his email tone.
Dr. Akali Omeni, an expert in counter-terrorism, accused the university of racial discrimination after he was told that his emails lacked decorum and professionalism. However, an employment tribunal ruled against him, declaring that his tone was objectively unprofessional.
The case has brought attention to the concept of "tone policing" — the practice of critiquing an individual's communication style, often seen as a form of silencing, especially in the context of race and power dynamics.
University of St Andrews
Dr. Omeni, who joined St Andrews’ School of International Relations in 2020, found himself in conflict with senior colleagues in early 2024. The issue began when Dr. Mathilde Von Bulow, Director of Teaching, emailed Dr. Omeni regarding his teaching duties for the upcoming academic year. Dr. Von Bulow asked him to confirm his agreement with her proposed changes, a request that Dr. Omeni strongly disagreed with.
In his response, Dr. Omeni criticized the wording of her request, stating: "You are explicitly asking me to confirm I am happy in a manner that vitiates the possibility that I am not." He also expressed discomfort over what he perceived as a "conflict of interest," as Dr. Von Bulow is married to Professor Phillips O'Brien, the Head of School and Dr. Omeni’s line manager.
When Dr. Omeni’s emails were forwarded to Professor Fiona McCallum Guiney, Deputy Head of School, the tone of his communication became a central point of contention. Professor McCallum Guiney responded by saying, "I did not appreciate the tone of your emails to the School's [Director of Teaching]."
This feedback prompted Dr. Omeni to argue that the criticism of his tone was a form of racial discrimination. He described "tone policing" as a micro-aggression, claiming that it was a historically charged term used to silence black voices. "Tone policing," he argued, was an action meant to undermine his credibility and perpetuate racial hierarchies.
In his tribunal case, Dr. Omeni cited a document titled “Tone Policing: When White People Are Uncomfortable, Black People Are Silenced.” He contended that the critique of his tone, coming from white colleagues, was rooted in racial prejudice and was detrimental to his professional and mental well-being.
Despite his claims, the tribunal dismissed Dr. Omeni’s case, ruling that there was no evidence of racial discrimination or harassment.
Employment Judge Jacqueline McCluskey noted that while Dr. Omeni believed his tone was neutral and professional, his emails were viewed as objectively unprofessional by his colleagues.
Judge McCluskey stated, “We were satisfied that the use of the word ‘tone’ in an email to Dr. Omeni was not a racist micro-aggression.” She added that there was no evidence of unconscious or conscious racial motivation behind the university’s actions. In fact, the judge found that the emails Dr. Omeni sent lacked the professionalism expected in a senior academic role.
The term "tone policing" has gained attention in recent years, especially in discussions around race and workplace culture.
It refers to the act of critiquing or dismissing someone’s arguments or concerns based on how they are expressed, rather than addressing the substance of what is being said.
Critics argue that this practice disproportionately affects people of color, who are more likely to be told that their communication is too “aggressive” or “hostile,” regardless of the content.
In Dr. Omeni’s case, the tribunal ruled that the feedback he received was based on the content and tone of his emails, not his race. However, his claims of racial bias underscore the complexities of interpreting communication styles in professional settings.
The St Andrews case highlights an ongoing debate in workplaces around the world about the role of tone and professional decorum. While institutions like universities strive to maintain respectful, collegial environments, the expectation of how one communicates can sometimes mask deeper issues related to power and inequality.
For Dr. Omeni, the criticism of his tone was not simply about professional conduct—it was about the broader context of race and how black individuals are often unfairly penalized for expressing themselves assertively. His experience, although not upheld by the tribunal, is reflective of a wider conversation about how power dynamics, both racial and professional, shape workplace culture.
While the tribunal found that the university did not discriminate against Dr. Omeni, the case has brought important questions about equity in professional environments to the forefront.
Dr. Omeni’s claims point to a larger issue of how marginalized individuals, especially people of color, are held to different standards of communication. The tension between professional decorum and authentic self-expression remains a delicate balancing act in many workplaces.
This case also sheds light on the importance of clear communication guidelines in academic settings, where expectations of professionalism can often clash with personal experiences of race and power.
It calls for universities and other institutions to better navigate the fine line between maintaining decorum and fostering an inclusive environment where diverse voices are heard and respected.
