Why the Study of Religion Needs to Talk About Racism—Observations and Suggestions from Switzerland

Abstract

This article explores strategies for integrating anti-racist approaches into university-level study of religion teaching on multiple levels, including curriculum design, selection of teaching materials, self-reflection practices, responses to concrete classroom situations and fostering environments that protect students of colour while encouraging “white” students to critically examine their own privileges. To contextualize this endeavour, the article first outlines the current situation and describes some challenges related to racism and anti-racism efforts within a Swiss university context, drawing on recent empirical studies. This is followed by an examination of the historical development of racial thought, culminating in contemporary discussions of neo-racism and its connection with the classification category religion. A working definition of racism suitable for academic teaching is then proposed. The article further investigates the relationship between racism and the study of religion, arguing that the discipline has a crucial role to play in addressing and combating racist ideologies. This argument is supported by some empirical data from the author’s doctoral research, as well as examples drawn from the author’s teaching experience at the University of Zurich. By combining historical analysis with practical teaching strategies, thearticle aims to provide a coherent framework for embedding anti-racist principles in higher education.

1. Introduction: Racism as a Prevalent Problem at Universities

Racism constitutes a major problem in society1 and is thus also a pressing issue at public institutions such as universities. As various studies, which are referenced in this article, bring to light, the (increasing) participation of people with experience of racism in universities shows that these individuals do not perceive the university as a safe space. They are even exposed to racism there, which is why this issue needs to be considered in university teaching. At the same time, addressing racism among “white”2 students and lecturers can provoke discomfort and defensive reactions. This article therefore investigates the question of how universities can become places that openly and consequently address racism and act against it, in order to create a safe space for PoC3 and meet the legal foundations of anti-discrimination.

The article first presents recent studies about racism at universities in Switzerland as well as legal foundations. This is followed by conceptual derivations, explaining the development from racial thinking to current neo-racism, which also draws on religion as a category of distinction. Furthermore, this text presents a working definition of racism suitable for the university context and the study of religion. Subsequently, it is clarified why the study of religion in particular must address racism. Additionally, conceptualizations of religion and cultures which can lead to racism are presented and uncovered. Finally, suggestions for anti-racism university teaching in the study of religion on several levels follow, including a personal investigation of racism for lecturers and students.

2. The Current State at Swiss Universities

Although people with experiences of racism still represent a minority at Swiss universities, compared to their distribution in overall society, racism becomes more visible there. As Breton and Burren (2021) emphasize in their study on the experiences of migratory4 students at Swiss universities of applied sciences, societal differences, which are to be understood in connection with migration, are inherently connected to power constellations and admission possibilities at universities. In their investigation, which is based on a survey of students in social work and pedagogy, it becomes apparent that migratory students are confronted with an “assumption of cultural otherness” and the attribution of foreignness (Breton and Burren 2021, p. 178). A classification as “Muslim”, for instance, is made into a distinguishing feature. Likewise, due to attributions made because of external characteristics such as skin colour or the wearing of a headscarf, insufficient language skills are assumed. For teacher-training students, there is another study by Bischoff and Edelmann (2017) that documents significant under-representation for both migratory students and lecturers, which can be attributed to structural discrimination permeating the education system and making participation for PoC inaccessible. As Ha (2016) notes:

Universities produce and negotiate socially recognized knowledge. The exclusion of socially discriminated groups from knowledge production raises epistemological, scientific theory related and ultimately also democratic legitimacy problems as a result of the mutual dependence of knowledge and power. Therefore, it appears not only sensible but also necessary to debate the university as a white parallel society.

(n.p.)

At the same time, it is often difficult for students to report racist incidents. The mechanisms of reporting are convoluted, and responsibilities are ultimately unclear (Ahmed 2021). Specific reporting points have often not yet been created within many universities and institutes of higher education here in Switzerland. Therefore, students have to rely on their individual lecturers as points of contact. Whether and to what extent the lecturers are ultimately willing to take these reports seriously and pursue it further depends on each individual. The fact that racism is sometimes not recognized as such either by those affected or by those perpetrating it, or is rejected, complicates the issue of anti-racist and preventive work further (Bernstein and Diddens 2021; Fereidooni and Simon 2020).

At this point, it is therefore of central importance to refer to the legal foundations that prohibit racist discrimination in Switzerland (Art. 8, Equality before the law, Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation, BV, 2000)5 and classify racism as an “official offence” (Offizialdelikt in German) (Art. 261bis, Swiss Criminal Code, StGB, 1937)6. This is also relevant for universities because it means that students and lecturers can file charges when they observe racist acts, even if they are not themselves affected by the racism that has occurred. Similar laws also exist in most Western7 countries.

To sum up, while the prevalence of racism within the university is a given fact and increasingly researched, reporting it often proves difficult. However, tackling racism is a necessity also due to the mentioned legal foundations.

3. Conceptual Derivation and Definition: From Racial Thinking to Neo-Racism

Firstly, a brief historical derivation of the term is given, which is needed in order to understand the current connection of racism to religion and culture. Following this, a working definition of racism for this article is presented, which can also be used at university and sets a foundation for the framework presented here for anti-racism work within study of religion modules. As there are numerous current definitions of racism to choose from, it is assumed that an explication of the term is essential in order to be able to work in a racism-critical manner (M. Weis 2017).

Racism is a historically far-reaching phenomenon, even though the term racism as such has only found broader use since the first half of the 20th century (Naguib 2014). Since the 15th century, however, the concept of “race”8 has ordered “human groups according to arbitrary characteristics” (Goldberg 2006). Representatives of critical race theory, which this article follows, argue with regard to history that the concept of “race” continues to shape and structure European and many other societies to this day. Thus, current attributions, stereotypes and violence against people who are not read as “white” draw on these historically grown relationships, which were characterized by a power imbalance that continues to exist today (Goldberg 2002; Boulila 2019).

However, there has been a shift over time in what categories have been used to construct racism. Whereas initially racism mainly denoted categories of distinction such as “ethnicity”, “origin” or “skin colour”, over time, an expansion took place whereby cultural and religious attributions were also drawn upon for classification. Thus, a “racism without races” emerged (Balibar [1988] 2017, p. 27). Étienne Balibar also calls this phenomenon “neo-racism”. The supposed “irrevocability of cultural differences” becomes the main focus of this new racism. Culture is thereby determined a priori to be unchangeable (Balibar [1988] 2017, p. 30). In this context, one can also speak of “cultural racism” (e.g., Rommelspacher 2011). A category like “culture” or “religion” is thus naturalized and essentialized to such an extent that it becomes a representative of the concept of “race” (M. Weis 2017, p. 19; Fredrickson 2011), which is one reason why the study of religion has to engage with the topic of racism.

With reference to the above explanations, racism is therefore understood in this article as historically grown. Following Spereisen and Affolter (2021), racism is also understood here as something that concerns all people in a society. However, even if stereotyped essentializations are made, they shall only be labelled as racism if entailing a hierarchization of the alleged differences (M. Weis 2017, p. 21). Based on the explanations given, the following working definition should be adopted for this article, as it refers to the already mentioned foundations and attempts to capture the complexity of racism in a nuanced way:

Racism is a system of practices and discourses that refer to diffuse and fictitious differences in the context of semantic constructs such as “race,” “nationality,” “ethnicity,” “culture,” “religion,” etc., and are produced through the argumentative mechanisms of naturalization, homogenization, polarization and hierarchization. Through the constant recourse to these ideological-biologistic argumentation patterns in racist actions and narratives, historically grown and currently existing power and inequality relationships are legitimized and reproduced. The practices and discourses of racism exist—alone and in their dynamic interaction with other difference orders (such as sexism, classism or ableism)—at the personal, epistemic and institutional level and can appear explicitly or implicitly, intended or unintended, as well as consciously or unconsciously.

(M. Weis 2017, p. 23)

Referring to Stuart Hall (2004) and Birgit Rommelspacher (2011), it can be specified that this involves marking differences and excluding access to resources according to deliberately created criteria. In relation to the explanations given, it can also be clarified why group-based racisms such as anti-Muslim racism, antiziganism, anti-Slavism, etc., and also antisemitism must be considered. In the sense of the mentioned neo- or cultural racism, supposedly biological or cultural and/or religious differences are attributed to “the other.” Deficits are ascribed to the group or person in question that are then anchored in physicality or personality (Rommelspacher 2011, p. 28). For example, belonging to Judaism is constituted in this reading as a kind of characteristic that permeates one’s essence and is inherited via religion. Such conceptualizations are therefore strongly connected to the perception and framing of religions and cultures, and to tendencies such as othering or exoticizing, which will be discussed later in this article.

Furthermore, a distinction between structural racism and everyday racism seems helpful (Hormel and Scherr 2009). Structural racism is often referred to as “systemic”. This illustrates that individual persons are not to blame for racist social structures but nevertheless have the duty to act against them in order not to continue their dissemination. Racism is therefore much more than just individual misconduct:

Structural racism is a social system of discourses, maxims of action and normative ideas that emerge from historically grown forms of domination and tend to reproduce existing inequality relationships of racialized groups. Racist discrimination does not presuppose an explicitly racist ideology or intention of a person or institution and therefore focuses less on supposed perpetration than on the consequences for directly affected persons.

(Mugglin et al. 2022, p. 7)

This precision is important for discussing racism in the university context, as will be shown subsequently. When institutions are involved in such structures, one speaks of institutional racism: “It encompasses practices of degradation, disadvantage and exclusion of groups and their members in organizations, companies or institutions” (Mugglin et al. 2022, p. 21), which can also apply to the university, as shown with the studies cited.

There are numerous studies that treat the various manifestations of neo-racism, which are important foundations for teaching about racism in the study of religion. Antisemitism and anti-Muslim racism (Shooman 2014; Attia 2013; Keskinkilic 2019)9 are briefly pointed to here as examples, as these continue to increase, particularly with reference to the Middle East conflict. They are therefore discussed in the study of religion modules which the author teaches at university. Anti-Muslim racism represents a newer and widespread form of cultural racism in Europe. Here, a “Muslimization” of people formerly assigned to a nation takes place (Behloul 2010)—regardless of whether they identify themselves as Muslim or not.

Likewise, antisemitism is on the rise. It should be noted that different understandings can be found of whether antisemitism should be considered as a form of racism or as a completely independent phenomenon with an incomparable specificity due to the Shoah (for this debate see, for example Biskamp 2021). This in turn is related to different definitions of antisemitism, which have to be considered when speaking about this phenomenon (for a discussion, see F. Weis 2022; Grigat 2023).

4. What Racism Has to Do with Religion and the Study of Religion

A question frequently asked by students: what does racism have to do with the study of religion as well as with religions and cultures? Apart from the above-mentioned reference of racism to the category “religion”, it will subsequently be briefly traced how the study of religion has developed as a discipline and has (or has not) addressed this topic. Subsequently, through the clarification of current concepts from religious and cultural studies, such as othering, this will clarify how these are connected to the outlined understanding of racism. The following observations build the foundation of the framework for anti-racism work as presented in the last part of this article, as they will explicitly be taught to the students in study of religion modules.

With the cultural turn in the social sciences and humanities (Bachmann-Medick 2016), an initial awareness was created that powerful dispositives are at work when establishing certain concepts of culture and religion and categorizing people according to those concepts. Stuart Hall and Gram Gieben invite us to understand these establishments in connection with the powerful dispositive “the West and the Rest” (Hall and Gieben 2003, p. 280). This conceptualization is still at play, and constructs the world as two opposing blocks, with “the West” clearly differentiated from “the Rest”. “The West” is to be understood in this context as a discursively effective, historically grown idea and not as a geographical construct that functions as a standard of comparison in contact with “foreign” cultures/religions. This dispositive reproduces historically grown power relationships even today, and regards the “other” as inferior from a Eurocentric perspective. Racism is therefore closely connected with Eurocentrism in the West and profits from it by reproducing the ideology of the ruling class (Bojadžijev 2012, p. 21), and thus legitimizes social inequality.10

In the course of postcolonial and critical studies, a reappraisal of the colonially shaped research history within the study of religion has been undertaken (e.g., Smith 1998; Taylor 1998). In particular, the area studies, which engage with religions read as “foreign”, such as Buddhism, came to the realization through this reappraisal that they had designed their own, European-influenced image of religions and their members, which does not do justice to diversely lived religion and which reproduces stereotypes. The research of Donald Lopez may be mentioned here as an example, which highlights the effectiveness of orientalist and colonial-era-influenced representations, particularly of Tibetan Buddhism (Lopez 1995, 2005). Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz also notes:

Nevertheless, a factual-critical reappraisal of stereotypical interpretations and an established Eurocentric and essentializing-reductionist perception of Buddhist teachings and practices as well as Buddhist societies appears desirable, as is currently happening in different scientific disciplines such as Tibetology and the Study of Religion.

(Kollmar-Paulenz 2010, p. 15)

As Tomoko Masuzawa remarks in this regard: “Buddhism as such was created in a European philological workshop for the first time” (Masuzawa 2005, p. 126). Richard King (1999) argues in the same direction, emphasizing with reference to the fundamental work Orientalism by Edward Said ([1978] 1995) that stereotyping and homogenizing images of “foreign” religions should be abandoned. Similar movements have also taken place, for example, in relation to Hinduism (Flood 1999) and Islam (Asad [1986] 2009).

In this regard, the role of colonialism was also re-examined. Not only military and economic dominance but also cultural hegemony of perspectives and interpretations were and still are effective through colonialism. Colonialism is in this understanding not regarded as having been overcome after the end of direct occupation. Rather the presence of a neocolonialism is assumed in the sense of postcolonial and critical studies (Nkrumah [1965] 2009), which shows itself, among other things, in the continuation of cultural hegemony, economic superiority and related classification mechanisms, which will be discussed below.

Following this, researchers demand critical reflection on the commercialization and cultural appropriation of religion/culture in public discourses (cf. for example Appadurai 1986 in general; Brauen 2000; Mullen 1998 in relation to Tibetan Buddhism).11 Likewise, power-critical and discourse-analytical perspectives were established, asking who has the right to define religion in which contexts, and particularly with which intentions (e.g., Martin 2017). Criticism was furthermore voiced regarding Western interpretive sovereignty in the definition of religion (e.g., Asad 1993). The voices of researchers not read as “white” found no entry into Western study of religion discourse for a long time, and are still marginally represented today.

Likewise, powerful discursive concepts such as the “world religions paradigm” (Masuzawa 2005) were starting to be questioned, as this concept leads to Eurocentric, homogenizing attributions that can in turn promote stereotyping and othering by establishing Christianity as a standard of comparison and interpreting religions as almost unchangeable symbol containers. The comparison made to the “world religions” often entailed a devaluation of these religions and cultures, as they did not fit the established model.

In connection with the world religions paradigm, the study of religion created the idea of global and important religions worth researching and neglected others, subsuming them under large and imprecise categories such as “indigenous religions”. This umbrella term does not do justice to the many religions subsumed under it and lacks conceptual clarification (Cox 2007; Tafjord 2013). Therefore, the uncovering of underlying normativities in the study of religion is furthermore crucial, and is examined in modules the author teaches.

In the course of critical and postcolonial studies, the already mentioned specific attribution and classification mechanisms such as othering, stereotyping, groupism and exoticization were also identified, which should be avoided in order to approach phenomena related to religions and cultures in a scientifically appropriate manner and thereby break patterns of superiority thinking established in Eurocentric research history. If the presented definition of racism is considered, it can be explained how the tendencies elaborated upon can act as racism when a hierarchization of the difference made in speaking and discrimination12 is connected with these. This is shown subsequently through concrete examples which are included in the modules taught by the author. This allows a demonstration of the connection between these tendencies, which draw on religion and culture as distinction categories, and racism.

On the one hand, it is about avoiding an essentialization of religions/cultures and their members. In the mode of essentialization, people as well as religions and/or cultures are fixed and reduced to their (supposedly) original essence, whereby internal heterogeneity is negated. Religion/culture is presented as an unchangeable, self-contained construct, which results in generalized statements. This is shown exemplarily in the following statement by a teacher, interviewed for the author’s PhD thesis (Maegli 2024)13:

[…] I try to design it [the teaching] so, so this sounds quite stupid now, but that it [the religions] are actually all the same, that we are/um I explain what systems people have invented to explain the before and after of life and well, either one is born into such a system or one acquires it […]

(Catharina)

Essentializations can thereby form a basis for stereotyping, where individual aspects or (supposed) “characteristics” of religions/worldviews/cultures are picked out and established as representative of the whole. Viewpoints of individuals are thus lost. Such statements are often strongly normative (e.g., “the peaceful Buddhist”, “the oppressed Muslim woman”, etc.). If these stereotypes contain discriminatory expressions and negative evaluations and/or express a feeling of superiority, they act as racism. Layla F. Saad (2020) also speaks in this context of “racist stereotypes”, since stereotyping in this case emanates from the powerful group and happens at the expense of the group read as “foreign”.

Some of these stereotypes also act in a religionizing (Buchardt 2014; Rissanen et al. 2020) or culturalizing manner (Tezcan 2011). Religion or culture are thereby established as the central or even sole justification for a person’s actions. Other personality-constituting characteristics or circumstances are not considered as reasons for actions. Culturalization assumes an inherent relationship between the (supposed) origins of a social group and the actions of its members. An “otherness” is taken for granted, which leads to specific societal treatments of the given group (Tezcan 2011, p. 358). In this, the powerful group determines who/how a person is supposed to be, and there is a negatively connoted evaluation of the other person and a power imbalance, as this example from the author’s research (Maegli 2024, 2025) exemplarily shows: a teacher who understands herself as a Tibetan Buddhist describes how a non-Tibetan teacher from her team, who is interested in Tibetan Buddhism and meditation, addresses her about her (lacking) religious practice:

[…] but it’s not like we talk about it a lot now, because she realizes as well, she’s already said: “Yes, then that and blah blah blah” and I’m a bit like: “mhh”, and she already realizes that my interest is less than hers and that’s why, yes. She’s also said to me: “Hey, it would be so good if you meditated a bit too, or, you know, if you were a bit more involved with that” and that’s true; other people say this to me too, or, “You could be more involved with your own religion” and so on and then I think: “Yes, true”.

(Nima)

The “white” person hereby takes the right to teach a PoC about her “own religion” and to aim for a behavioural change. The addressed person takes this to heart and consequently doubts herself and the “correctness” of her attitude towards her religion and her (absent) practice. Her view regarding her own religion undergoes an evaluation from outside.

Culturalizations and religionizations can also be connected with groupism (Brubaker 2004), i.e., the idea that individuals always act as representatives of their attributed culture, religion, nationality, etc. Here, individual members of a group are considered liable for events that affect the constructed group, and stereotypical assumptions and prejudices are confirmed in this logic. This might for example entail patterns of thinking that fundamentally connect Muslims with terrorism.

In the attribution mechanism of othering (e.g., Lingen-Ali and Mecheril 2016), a clear demarcation is made between an “us” group (or “that’s how it is among us”) and an “other/foreign”. On the one hand, it is assumed that “we” are morally superior. “We” are established as a standard, whereby reference is frequently made implicitly or explicitly to Christianity and/or “Christian values”. Groupism and othering condense in the following quote from the author’s research with teachers (Maegli 2024, 2025) into anti-Muslim racism (Attia 2013; Keskinkilic 2019):

I come from a Christian background; for me it’s quite clear that at some point, hey, the wise person gives in, and the donkey stays put; let it go, it’s okay, his attitude like, and then I realise a lot: I have about 50% Muslims and with them it’s: “hey, revenge” or, “I have to give it back, you have to avenge it and that’s unfair, and and, if I leave it like that now, then afterwards I’ll be seen as weak and then I’m no-one”, and I always thought: “It’s so difficult for me”, and at some point, I realised: “Aha, the difference is simply that Christians have recognised Jesus as saviour, and they don’t have to fight”.

(Selina)

In this statement, Muslims are understood as a homogeneous group whose conflict behaviour, according to this teacher’s understanding, is directly shaped by their religion. The revenge motif is thereby stylized as a typically Muslim characteristic. “Foreign” religions are judged based on one’s own Christian ideas, whereby one’s own religion is presented as morally superior (Alberts 2017). This statement furthermore shows a “rucksack view of culture” (Erel 2010), i.e., the idea that people take an unchangeable set of cultural goods and values from their country of origin when they migrate, and that the content of the “rucksack” cannot be adapted at the place of arrival.

The already mentioned attributions and classifications can also be connected with exoticization. Here, “foreign” religions are viewed in the sense of a “cabinet of curiosities”. The focus is on the “foreign” (and not on the common), and this “foreign” is either admiringly highlighted as “colourful and interesting” or judged as “abhorrent and backward”. This is shown in the following example from the author’s research (Maegli 2024, 2025):

I mean Thailand, the Thai king, who is no longer alive, who is now the head—yes, for the others it is the Dalai Lama, it is so very, hmm, difficult; difficult to understand; it’s almost like a god-king, or, we’re actually in the Middle Ages; we’re actually with Louis XIV or, I don’t know, we’re somewhere else, hmm.

(Catharina)

According to this statement, Thailand lacks decisive historical developments, and the mentioned tradition is therefore disparagingly compared with a past time in Europe. A hierarchizing difference is thus created which produces racism. As shown in the mentioned statement, interest in the “foreign” is often shaped by superiority thinking (Altglas 2014). Anne Koch notes with reference to religious education: “The exotic countries-people-adventure aesthetics shows fascination with cultural diversity. The everyday life of members of those religions in front of my door hardly expresses this” (Koch 2021, p. 285). Exoticization is thereby traceable to a colonial power imbalance. In this view, the unadopted foreign should be brought under control and civilized (Foster 1982, p. 21). An example is the conceptualization of Tibet in films (such as Seven Years in Tibet by Jean-Jacques Annaud 1997): Tibet appears as a land full of smiling, peaceful monks filled with religious wisdom, while the Western actors are assigned the role of liberators and saviours of Tibet (Mullen 1998, p. 4). Tibetans are viewed in a way that creates a hierarchy and is discriminatory. Tibet furthermore often appears in such representations as a harmonious civilization that has fallen out of time and as a projection surface for utopias, as an “untouched and remote spiritual fairyland” (Kollmar-Paulenz 2010, p. 2), thereby promoting stereotypes (Maegli 2024).

In the preceding sections, it could be shown that the mentioned attribution mechanisms, which the study of religion is able to dismantle, contain hierarchization and discrimination in many cases. They thus act as racism, with reference to the presented definition of the latter and need, therefore, to be integrated into anti-racist teaching in the study of religion at university.

5. A Possible Framework: Suggestions for Anti-Racist University Teaching in the Study of Religion

Firstly, it is crucial to clarify, for the lecturers as well as for the students, why anti-racist work within university is important and how it can be defined in this context. With reference to Wiebke Scharathow and Rudolf Leiprecht, anti-racism is understood here as the “elaborate, creative, necessarily reflexive, constantly to be developed and inconclusive, yet decisive practice that is carried by the conviction that it makes sense not to be governed so much by racist forms of action, experience and thought, but to perceive these as ‘structural principles of social reality’” (Scharathow and Leiprecht 2011, p. 10). Racism criticism further emphasizes that power inequalities cannot be abolished, and people likewise cannot opt out of society (Saad 2020). Anti-racism is also central because no institution or individual is free of racism (Fereidooni 2019, p. 2). We all reproduce racist structures if we do not recognize and question them.

In the following sections, it should be clarified how racism can be thematized on various levels in the study of religion using the example of the study of religion education for future Religion, Culture, Ethics teachers14 that the author provides at the University of Zurich. Regarding university teaching, racism-critical work is divided into several thematic sub-categories, as outlined below.

• 5a. Module Content, Teaching Material and Competencies for Students

On one hand, the modules should make the above-mentioned paradigm shifts and developments in the study of religion transparent to students. In addition to this, they should focus on content which explains the entanglement of the study of religion with colonialism and racism. In order to disrupt the prevalent “world religions paradigm” (Masuzawa 2005), the education at the University of Zurich has recently been restructured, and the module contents are now organized thematically rather than by religion to prevent stereotyping. Using current research examples, it is shown how the explained attribution and classification mechanisms such as othering work with reference to religion and culture. An entire seminar in the education of secondary school teachers in the study of religion in Zurich is therefore dedicated to global and colonial entanglements of religion.15 In this seminar, the liaisons of religion, the study of religion and colonialism are shown, and reference is made to current conflicts in connection with cultures/worldviews/religions. This includes the thematization of cultural appropriation of religious and cultural practices and symbols, as well as the Middle East conflict. This also leads to the study of anti-Muslim racism and antisemitism and the underlying racism concept explained here. Using the Swiss media discourse about the Middle East conflict, it can be shown exemplarily how religion as a classification mechanism can reproduce these racisms. In connection with the emergence of antisemitic and anti-Muslim narratives, reference is also made to persistent conspiracy theories, such as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” or the “Great Replacement”, which are clearly antisemitic and racist.

Furthermore, in the sense of decolonizing the curriculum, care is taken to ensure that non-Eurocentric perspectives as well as contributions from PoC researchers are appropriately considered16 and that further harm to people with experience of racism is avoided. This is especially important in the study of religion, hence for a long time what was written and discussed about “foreign” religions stemmed mostly from “white”, Western researchers, neglecting the voices of practitioners, and thus lived religion, relying almost uniquely on the translation of texts.17 The following explanations, however, are also transferable and relevant to other subject areas.

The insight that colonial knowledge continues to work in university curricula, especially in the study of religion, is a central part of combating racism.18 It must therefore be ensured that racisms are not reproduced either in the form of images, language or selected teaching material. If historical, racist images or texts are to be used as sources, these are to be provided with a trigger warning, contextualized and adapted, in order not to repeat injuries to people affected by racism.

The modules then intend to foster specific competencies for students which are considered essential for anti-racist work in the study of religion. These aim to recognize normativity when speaking about religion(s) and cultures, reading religion as an “essentially contested concept” (Schröder 2024), and thinking contextually about religion. Likewise, ambiguity tolerance and the ability to change perspectives are trained (Bauer 2018). Based on case examples from the author’s previous practice as a secondary school teacher, or from students or current studies, concrete reflections are undertaken on how the identified classification mechanisms, such as othering, as well as racism can be uncovered and prevented in school and university practice with the help of scientific approaches such as discourse analysis.

• 5b. Reflections on One’s Own Behaviour and “White” Privileges

A crucial part of anti-racist work at university furthermore consists in repeatedly question oneself as a “white” lecturer for possible (unintended) racist statements and actions and reflect upon the privileges of being read as “white” within university. One possibility is to address this openly and ask for feedback should this happen, emphasizing the importance of an open error culture (M. Weis 2017). As Robin DiAngelo (2018) notes, one should not go on the defensive, and it is central to acknowledge if one was hurtful. Becoming aware of the privileges that one enjoys in society and institutions as a “white” person is another important step, engaging critically with one’s own “whiteness”. Martina Tissberger (2006) therefore speaks of “racism against one’s will”, which results from the systematic non-thematization of “whiteness” and its associated privileges. Particularly with reference to the contrast between the “Christian Occident” and the “Oriental Other” that has been increasingly constructed since 9/11. The “Oriental” must thereby be different, thus oriental, so that an occidental identity can be constructed, setting itself apart (Tissberger 2006, p. 236). “White” privilege in this context shall thus be thought of “as intangible advantages that are afforded to white (or white-passing) individuals that have not been earned through labour or merit” (Lin et al. 2023, p. 36). Referring to Peggy McIntosh (1989), this includes, for example, the fact that “white” persons can arrange to mostly be in the company of other “white” people in society if they want to. Likewise, “white” people can count on being represented in the media (including school and university media). Furthermore, as a “white” person, one does not have to fear arbitrary police controls due to racialization, and one enjoys a certain reputation without one’s own contribution when approaching public authorities with a request. “White” persons are also fundamentally perceived and recognized in society and enjoy easier access to resources such as housing or education than persons affected by racism (Anderson 2016; Eberhardt 2019; McIntosh 1989).19 Corry Collins calls this structure “the power of normal” (Collins 2018, n.p.). A decentring of “whiteness”, as explained by Lin et al. (2023), also means that “white” persons use their privileges to support students and people affected by racism, and that one condemns racism privately and publicly, intervenes in discrimination and educates oneself about racism together with other “white” students and lecturers. First and foremost, however, it is important to recognize racism and take it seriously.

• 5c. Challenges of Anti-Racism Work, Derailing Strategies and Possible Reactions

In university teaching, it becomes apparent that anti-racism work brings challenges for all involved, albeit for different reasons, which will be looked at in the following section with examples from the authors lectures in the study of religion. While persons affected by racism have understandably already asked the author whether they may briefly leave the room during the thematization of racism, or have even had to endure racist remarks from other students or from lecturers, some “white” students react with a defensive attitude to this topic. As Rommelspacher noted: “The fact that only a few people describe themselves as racist and most rather understand themselves as open and tolerant explains to a large extent the great resistance to the thematization of racism” (Rommelspacher 2011, p. 35). Following the thoughts of DiAngelo (2018), it can also be noted:

When the prevailing opinion is that racism is the cruel crime of an individual, it is clear that only terrible people who reject Black people/PoC can commit this crime. And although this assumption is simply wrong, it works wonderfully as a shield to cover up racism itself. More than that: It prevents the dialogue that would be necessary to expose racism and bring about change.

(Ogette 2019, p. 16)

The reference to racist action then leads to feelings such as shame, anger and guilt (DiAngelo 2018, p. 121) or also sadness, disappointment, despair, irritation and much more (Bönkost 2018, p. 2). These emotions prevent, if not carefully dealt with, further work on the topic. Tupoka Ogette references five phases that “white” persons go through regarding racism: 1. Denial of racism, 2. Defence and defence mechanisms when racism is discussed, 3. Shame and bad conscience, 4. Feelings of guilt, 5. Recognition that racism is “real and effective as a system” without feeling attacked (Ogette 2019, p. 18). The thematization of racism entails questioning long-held and normalized patterns of thoughts and actions in a self-critical manner, assessing one’s own position in racist power structures (Bönkost 2018, p. 2). An announcement of what awaits students can sensitize them to perceive their own emotions and experience them as racism-relevant (Bönkost 2018, p. 4).

Specific derailing strategies of “white” students, which the author observed in modules, entail the following: In order not to address racism, one’s own discrimination experiences may be immediately laid out, which are sometimes also labelled as “racism against ‘whites’”. Furthermore, racism is scandalized by claiming that those affected are too sensitive, which can be accompanied by a refusal to linguistically adapt racist content (i.e., not to write out “the N-word”) and/or to provide racist content with a trigger warning and contextualization to protect people affected by racism. Another reaction involves giving personal accounts where it is either stated that (a) racism is not a problem for PoC whom the speaker knows, neglecting that racism is not only what is labelled as such by affected people but that it might be undiscovered even by them, or (b) that one, as a “white” person, does not consider historical power imbalances established through colonialism a problem in the past or present for people in ex-colonies. Instead, they state that the people living under colonial rule have been and are still helped by “white” people, thereby defending colonialist practices and “white saviourism” (Saad 2020). This can entail a spatial-temporal externalization, i.e., to promote the idea that racism is a problem of countries which directly possessed colonies, but not Switzerland, and of a past time, as in this view colonialism has ended (Michel 2015). Some students are also taking themselves out of the discussion, stating that they are not racist and therefore do not have to discuss this topic further, considering racism to be an individual problem, thus privatizing it (Spereisen and Affolter 2021, p. 249). The author could furthermore observe what she names the “politicization” of racism, attributing anti-racism work to a certain political view. The thematization of racism is then considered a “woke” and/or left-wing undertaking which tries to bring left-wing politics into universities, or which tries to foster a “cancel culture” as it is lamented that nothing can be said anymore publicly. It is thereby neglected that the studies and literature presented in class (a) stem from broadly accepted research conducted according to upheld standards in the respective scientific communities and are published in established publishing organs, and (b) are in line with the teaching doctrine of, in this case, the University of Zurich. It is therefore crucial to clearly name the diverse sources, which also include official government policies, to make it clear where they come from. Different scientific paradigms which are referred to must be explained and also critically examined to offer a multiplicity of viewpoints. It should be pointed out when activist texts and insider perspectives are used to exemplify the effects on racism on PoC. Furthermore, the legal foundation has to be indicated, which obligates universities and public institutions such as schools to prevent racism and act upon its appearance. In a grassroots democracy such as Switzerland, laws are furthermore a compromise on the part of all parties involved in the political landscape from right to left, and not just one political side. As laid out in this article, it is crucial to show the entanglement of the study of religion, colonialism and racism, dismantling the idea expressed by some students that racism is only operating with categories such as “race” or “ethnicity”.

As these described reactions show, it is central to listen to the concerns of “white” individuals who feel that they cannot speak their minds freely anymore, whilst at the same time setting clear boundaries against racist statements in not tolerating them. It is finally vital to counter defence mechanisms, to refer to the mentioned structural dimension of racism in which we are all embedded (Rommelspacher 2011). Students should recognize that the issue is not about assigning blame to them personally, but about learning together. It should therefore not be denied that “white” students can experience challenges and discrimination due to gender, socioeconomic status, disability, etc. (here also including an awareness of intersectionality). As lecturers, it is important to listen to students’ expressed feelings and to take them seriously and validate them. Nevertheless, these may not be used to relativize racism and distract from the topic of racism.

As lecturers it is at the same time of utmost importance to protect persons affected by racism and therefore to address positions that reproduce racism with reference to possible injuries for PoC, since “exposure to racism in various forms can cause psychological and emotional reactions that may rise to the level of trauma” (Carter and Forsyth 2009, p. 38). It is therefore central to give PoC the space to share their frustration, hurt and experiences of racism without regulating their tone (Saad 2020).

• 5d. A Final Step: Investigating and Confronting One’s Own Racism or One’s Experience of It

A central part of anti-racist work at university consists in investigating and confronting one’s own racism or one’s experience of it. Having discussed the above mentioned content and definitions, the following reflection work is integrated into the modules, stemming from PoC perspectives (relying on the literature from El-Maawi et al. 2022; Glover 2024; Ogette 2019; Saad 2020) and the author’s own ideas. It is actively encouraged that students consider religion- and culture-related racism in this. This work is first carried out individually at home, on a voluntary basis, and later shared with peers with whom one feels comfortable. Students should in this part be enabled to engage deeply with their own influences and experiences with the topic of racism. This is an important addition to the theoretical examination of racism that preceded it. To facilitate speaking about the topic, different glossaries, written by PoC people, activists and scholars, are handed out.

Subsequently, students affected by racism are (a) made aware of how they can proceed in case of experienced racism and where they can receive support; (b) shown through examples how racism can be recognized, to counteract the common assumption that it always entails physical assault or gross insults; and (c) given space and time during lectures and in breaks to report on racist experiences if they want to, during which they are listened to attentively. Specific reflection questions, the answers to which are prepared at home, also serve this purpose:

• What instances of racism come to mind that you have already experienced?
• Were there situations where you were not sure whether it was racism or not?
• What feelings do racism experiences trigger in you?
• What helped you in such situations?
• What help do you want from fellow human beings in such situations?

“White” students are shown that it is important:

(a)

to listen when PoC want to report on their experiences and that it is crucial to ask them what support they wish for in this moment;

(b)

not to immediately respond with one’s own discrimination experiences;

(c)

to recognize racism as a prevalent problem that affects the whole society, and to the abolition of which we all must commit ourselves in accordance with the law;

(d)

that they do not look away when everyday racism occurs;

(e)

that they acknowledge that racism, is in many cases, is certainly also emanating from them, not due to maliciousness but to a deeply internalized way of thinking. Research also speaks of “racism against one’s will” (e.g., Bönkost 2018; M. Weis 2017);

(f)

that they recognize that racism does not begin with extremist atrocities or the “clear cases” (such as statements like “go back where you came from”) that they would not commit themselves;

(g)

that they are ready to continue educating themselves independently, together with other “white” people, about this topic;

(h)

that they become aware of their possible reaction with shame, guilt or defensive attitudes when called out for racism and are honest with themselves when this happens;

(i)

that they acknowledge their own privileges, especially the privilege of not having to engage with the topic of racism when one does not want to (Saad 2020);

(j)

to speak with rather than for people affected by racism.

To give examples and start this work, the author has openly talked about how she has behaved in a “colour blind” manner for a long time, and believed that she could not be racist because she is related to and friends with PoC and people of diverse religious and cultural backgrounds. Here too, specific reflection questions can help:

• What does it trigger in you when people affected by racism tell you about racism?
• What are your reactions? What reaction would you wish from yourself?
• Where do you notice resistances to the topic? How do you deal with them?
• To what extent have you dealt with the topic so far?
• What are you willing to contribute in the future to become more well versed in this topic?
• Have you ever been accused of racism? If so, what did that trigger in you?
• What situations come to mind where you yourself, probably unintentionally, acted/expressed yourself in a racist way? What did it feel like?

Such an engagement presupposes a relationship of trust in the seminar room, and it is central that the lecturers participate openly and honestly in the tasks and also disclose their experiences, which is why the author answered the questions for herself as well and participated in group discussions about them.

In conclusion, it can be noted: regarding racism, one cannot behave neutrally. Either one actively opposes it, or one omits this and thereby reproduces racism (Biskamp 2021, p. 432). Every person working at the university must first address racism independently. However, so that racism-critical work does not only lie with individual lecturers and students, it would be of central importance to systematically anchor this at the university level with the suggestions made in this article. This must include anonymous reporting points for those affected.

As could be shown in this article, there is a need for action for a deeper engagement with the topic from the side of the study of religion and university teaching on multiple levels such as curriculum development, module content, competencies for students and reflection practices, as well as a closer look at historical and current entanglements of the study of religion with racism.