Content note: This article discusses the slave trade and makes mention of genocide

The consistory court hearing on the removal of a memorial to Tobias Rustat opened today (02/02) in Jesus College Chapel.

Rustat, a patron of the college, was an investor in the Royal African Company (RAC). The RAC was the single institution responsible for shipping the most enslaved people accross the Atlantic during the transatlantic slave trade.

In 2021, Jesus College petitioned the diocese of Ely to have a memorial in his honour relocated to a “place of learning” instead of its chapel. This was one of the recommendations made to the college by its Legacy of Slavery Working Party (LSWP), a body established in 2019.

As today’s hearing began, students protested outside the chapel in support of the College’s action to have the memorial relocated. They told Varsity they hoped the memorial’s removal would help make the chapel a more welcoming place for all.

The opening statement of Mark Hill QC, representing the petitioners, emphasised that the petitioners did not wish to erase the name of Tobias Rustat, but rather to contextualise the artefacts kept in his memory.

Hill clarified that there is no intention to remove “a glass window where Rustat’s coat of arms is visible” in the College’s dining hall.

The opposition reserved their opening statement for the second day of the hearing.

The Jesus College Chaplain, Reverend James Crockford, was then called to witness. Justin Gau, from the opposition, asked Crockford to confirm the church had refused previous demands to move the memorial.

He then asked the Reverend if he believed the initial idea of moving the memorial to an unused wine cellar “made the college a little bit of a laughing stock”.

“I would not think so”, the Chaplain answered.

The opposition asked why it was “impossible for the memorial to be put into context within this chapel?” Crockford responded that “Impossible is not the threshold”, saying that the college must contextualise the memorial in the best possible manner.

The chief oppositioner proceeded to use the example of displays of Jesus Christ on the crucifix. Undergraduates manage to put these distressing displays “of a dead and tortured man” into context, he stated.

If the church managed to contextualise the display of a dead and tortured body, the opposition asked why it could not similarly contextualise Rustat’s life within the building.

The chaplain stated: “If it was a small memorial, individuals could choose to engage with it or not. The issue is the centrality of the memorial. To enter or exit the chapel, any undergraduate would have to face the memorial and contextualise it”.

The opposition argued that undergraduates had false views about Rustat’s involvement with the slave trade, citing an email sent to all undergraduates by a student that stated “Rustat amassed most of his wealth from the RAC”.

Gau then asked if the college had made any effort to correct the information students were sharing about Rustat, quoting several student emails containing the line: “It is totally wrong for the statue of someone who was so heavily involved in the horrific crimes of slavery to be glorified.”

The Chaplain responded: “I do not think this sentence inappropriatly charaterises Rustat’s involvment with the slave trade”.

The Bishop of Ely Stephen Conway took the stand later. Gau enquired as to the Bishop’s knowledge of Rustat, and Conway detailed his slave trade involvement, describing Rustat as “someone who enabled human beings as traffickers.”

Conway argued that Rustat should “not have a place in this church. People don’t need to be reminded in such a holy place where their forebearers were tortured and dehumanised.”

After further questioning, he spoke of Rustat’s philanthropy: “He was in death, generous, as he was in life. But we are talking about the symbolism of this in relation to the chapel, opposite Christ… that is the concern.”

The Bishop was then questioned by Professor Lawrence Goldman, of St Peter’s College, Oxford. Goldman spoke of the “far-reaching implications” of the case, and asked whether the bishop would support movements to change memorials to people in other churches in the diocese.

Chair of the Legacy of Slavery Working Party and Jesus fellow Dr Véronique Mottier was asked by Gau about contemporary slavery in China – he asked how much Jesus College had received from China, to which Mottier was unsure of the answer.

Mottier later stated that “[using] the money of Rustat to build a more inclusive environment is a beautiful homage” – to which Gau responded: “You have just made the Parties Opponent’s case. Whatever the source of the money, it has been used for good, for centuries.”

Goldman later asked Mottier: “You find the tablet ‘repugnant’, but have made no recommendations to use the monies in any other way?... Would it not be better to come to your conclusion in regard to Tobias Rustat and his memorial when you’ve [completed your research]?”

Mottier disagreed: “In 2019 we knew already Rustat had invested over 30 years in the slave trade… Waiting four years would not have been justifiable.”

Sonita Alleyne, Master of Jesus College took the stand next, saying she was present because of her great faith that “we are in an age where the idea of equality is paramount.”

Neither Alleyne, nor the fellowship of Jesus College, according to her statement, found it “necessary” to set up an independent commission and inquiry in the way that Oriel College, Oxford did in 2020.

The Master was asked whether the Rustat memorial could be used in that “holistic” way and responded: “You’re asking people to do a difficult thing. Come in, listen to the history [of] a man who invested in the slave trade, and still get on and pray in that area…The implication is Christianity is difficult, you’re putting barriers in.”

Gau cut in, asking: “You’re saying life should be a bed of roses?” Alleyne responded that they are not setting out to make life difficult, but it can be made more inclusive for people. Taking it down would make it “an uncontested space.”

The questioning returned once more to China, with Gau asking whether Alleyne would denounce the PRC, to which she responded that “the situation in Xinjiang should concern us… [but] these issues are being conflated together.” She also stated that since she had been elected Master, there had been “no substantive monies coming in from China or Chinese organisations.”

The discussion finally turned towards students and their relation to the chapel, and the memorial. Alleyne asserted that it was “taking it out of this space would remove a barrier for students looking to this space, a religious space, for worship.”

Goldman replied that: “To take it out of this place is to make a judgement yourselves on the memorial, on Rustat… By removing it, you are taking that decision away from [students].”

She responded by asking: “Why should young people be put in a position where in order to worship they are compromised?” Finally, she said the Chapel should be “a safe space. Let’s go further than that… [and make it] a glorious space.”

Varsity will resume coverage of the consistory court hearing tomorrow (03/02).