Your questions answered

You may have questions about building names, the consultation, the result, or the background. On this page you can find the answers to some of the most frequent questions.

Your questions

If you have other questions, email us: reparative-futures@bristol.ac.uk.

What was the consultation process?

After the publication of the initial Legacies of Slavery report, we wanted to uncover our communities’ opinions about whether to rename the buildings that currently carry the names of our founders.

During the past year, we engaged extensively with our communities through a survey as well as in-person meetings. To make sure we had a broad perspective and representation, particularly from local Black communities in Bristol, we extended the engagement period beyond our original timeframe.

Learn more about the public consultation.

How did you make sure the consultation took into account the views of a diverse range of people?

The call for survey responses was published in local and national media. We held two hybrid meetings and an additional meeting at the Rose Green West Indian Cricket Centre to hear the voices of local Black community members.

How many people took part?

Almost 4,000 people contributed to the consultation process. 3,670 people responded to the survey and 165 people attended the two hybrid consultation meetings, with a further 150 people attending the community meeting at the Rose Green Centre.

What were the results of the public consultation?

Many of the comments and themes that arose from the feedback involved issues that went beyond the renaming of buildings.

While there were polarised views on renaming, all respondents felt that it was crucial to acknowledge and explain our past. They also wanted us to address the racism and racial inequalities that many had experienced either during their time at the University or in the University’s relation with the wider community.

There was a strong demand for co-creation of solutions with local community groups representing those of African and Caribbean descent, and to move from discussion and consultation to action.

Read the Consultation and Engagement Report.

Who made the decision about renaming and how was the decision made?

The members of the University Executive Board (UEB), chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, made the final decision on how to respond to our history and whether to rename buildings.

UEB considered our core mission as a place of research and education. Quantitative and qualitative data from the survey, in-person events, and community events, as well as contextual circumstances highlighted in the Legacies of Slavery report informed the decision. 

Did you give weight to different groups' opinions?

No, we did not give weight to any particular groups’ opinions. No particular event or source of data was weighted above another either, and the University Executive Board made the decision in line with the University Naming Policy.

Why have you decided to retain building names?

As a place of education and research, a critical part of our approach to being an inclusive place to study and work is to learn from, understand and better represent our history. With this in mind, we have decided to retain building names as we commit to contextualising and telling our history in an honest, open, and transparent way.

The feedback we received consistently told us that whatever the outcome in relation to renaming, it was critical to make sure that we acknowledge and explain our history. There was also a strong demand for co-creation of solutions with local community groups representing those of African and Caribbean descent, and to move from discussion and consultation to action.

The renaming of buildings and how to deal with a challenging history is a very complex issue, with no easy answers. So, we know that not everyone will agree with the approach we have taken, but as a world-renowned university, this is a place where we should be able to disagree and debate these questions thoughtfully and respectfully.

We are an evidence-based institution and fully committed to freedom of speech. This means that continued discussion is welcome as we think carefully about how we describe the full picture of our past, how we represent it, and what we can learn from it.

What is the Reparative Futures programme?

Our Reparative Futures programme is a £10 million, ten-year programme, designed to contextualise our history and to address long-standing issues of racial inequality.

The University and its local partners will deliver the programme. It is building on successful programmes such as our Black Bristol Scholarships and introducing new initiatives, including a community fund for collaborative projects between local groups and the University.

We will also extend our work to recruit, retain, and ensure the progression of staff from Black and racially minoritised backgrounds and eradicate the Black attainment and awarding gap for undergraduate students.

There will be further research into our past, co-created with our community partners, to help contextualise our buildings and acknowledge the impact of the slave trade on modern-day racial injustice and institutional racism.

Read more about the Reparative Futures programme. 

How will you ensure the programme involves a diverse range of voices and opinions?

The Reparative Futures programme will be designed on the principles of co-creation, communication, and dedicated resource. We will work together with our communities to shape our shared future.

This includes appointing accountability partners to hold the University to account and using external expert partners to help maximise the potential of the programme. We will hold community events to provide updates on our progress while agreeing priorities and inviting more feedback.

In keeping with our decision to retain the names of our buildings, we will also retain the symbols representing Wills and Fry in our logo. Keeping the names and these symbols reflect our position on better representing our history and to learn from it.

The Wills and Fry families made significant gifts to the university that enabled its foundation. They did not own or traffic in enslaved people. The products that our founders’ eighteenth and early nineteenth-century predecessors bought and processed, such as tobacco, sugar and cocoa, were though undoubtedly connected to enslaved labour from that period.

We have already removed Colston’s name from one of our student residences and will remove the dolphin from our logo. We are now considering how to implement this change and we will plan a phased update of the digital logo and otherwise will make changes through the natural maintenance and development of our facilities.

We made the decision to remove the reference to Colston as there is no direct connection between him and he University. Colston was a seventeenth-century investor in the slave trade. The University received no funding from Colston, who died nearly 200 years before we were founded. But his emblem, the dolphin, still forms part of our crest due to our connections with the 19th century Colston Society, and was incorporated into our modern logo in 2003.

Read more about the University and slavery.

How is our crest and Coat of Arms linked to our logo?

The current University logo incorporates elements of the Coat of Arms. The University’s Coat of Arms is often referred to as our crest. The Coat of Arms was granted to the University by the College of Arms alongside the granting of the Royal Charter in 1909.

It is a heraldic device, which comprises five symbols including a sun to represent the Wills family, a horse for the Fry family, a dolphin for the Colston family, an open book for learning, as well as the ship and castle from the medieval seal of the City of Bristol.

The Latin motto beneath the shield translates as ‘[Learning] promotes one's innate power.’ We will work through what the changes to the logo mean to the use of the crest. 

Read our Legacies of Slavery report.

What have you done to address criticism of the public consultation?

To ensure we had a broad perspective and representation, particularly from local Black communities in Bristol, we extended the engagement period.

We know that some people feel the consultation process has been imperfect and taken too long. Some respondents felt that the survey structure was not helpful and did not allow them to fully express their views and we know that the initial engagement lacked a broader perspective and representation.

All the qualitative and quantitative data from the survey was analysed and taken into account. This means all viewpoints shared in the free-text boxes and via email played a part in shaping our conclusions.

The two hybrid events and in-person event at the Rose Green Centre allowed further debate on the wider issues raised in the survey responses to give a deeper understanding of the complex views held on renaming and how we address our past.

You can read the Consultation and Engagement Report that informed the University Executive Board’s decision.