Since joining the University of Cambridge I have genuinely struggled to adapt to the culture here. As a black man from inner-city London, I questioned whether this was due to some bias against me and people like me.

First off we need to be very clear on what Cambridge’s problem with racial bias is. I do not believe there is an active agenda to perpetuate racist sentiment; in fact, the university puts a great deal of resources toward the issue of under-representation.

Yet there are systematic biases which lead to the under-representation of ethnic minorities – and, most poignantly to me, black students.

Cambridge is structurally racist. It is not actively or deliberately so, and I believe it is damaging to represent it as such. My experience is that similar levels of racism occur in London, perpetrated by people of all races, genders and socio-economic backgrounds. Our university is an easy target for such remarks, but this does not change the reality of the wider situation.

Black and white labelling (excuse the pun) is simplistic, and in opposition to the reasoned approach that makes us good Cambridge students. Any bias minorities experience here is a vestige of an institution built in a time when prejudiced views were widespread, and there was no need to consider how to access anyone other than white men. An accurate portrayal is central to the dissection of the causes of racial issues. None of this is profound, but the simple idea is being swept away by misplaced activism.

There is a pervasive culture of fear when it comes to race discussions, which is made worse by ill-informed labelling. By calling someone ‘racist’ you make a statement about their beliefs and intent, so such terminology must be used correctly.

There seems to be a viewpoint forming that merely ‘discovering’ racism serves as effective activism and improves race relations. It’s not, and it doesn’t. Such ‘activism’ does not tackle those viewpoints or fundamental structures that discriminate.

For example, there is little merit in stigmatising monuments – like the Cecil Rhodes statue in Oxford – or May Ball themes on the basis of the potential offence they may cause. These things are subjective.

Many lines of argument for this university being racist are born of inferred symbolism in artefacts, porters asking for IDs, or dressing in a national costume that you yourself do not identify with. But if you look for racism unthinkingly, you can find it in almost anything.

Once myself and a group of friends (the vast majority being black males) decided to take a stroll through Trinity College, in an explicit attempt to see whether the porter would stop us (I wasn’t privy to the motivations beforehand). The porter didn’t. Why not? Well, presumably he believed that we all went to the college or were members of the university. Then again, he could have been so intimidated by a group of young black men that he dared not say anything. The thing is, you can’t really know; anyway, it’s his job to ask for the ID of people who look unfamiliar.

Furthermore, the artefacts and monuments of this university are not de facto symbols of racial supremacy, nor are acts of dressing in others’ national garb. Wearing a people’s national attire can be a great show of respect – world leaders do so often. We should allow people their autonomy and put an emphasis on why such things can be offensive, if and when they are.

I believe all this does – looking for racism and offence in symbolism – is to fuel an environment of hypersensitivity. We need to educate; the majority of students at this university do not frequently associate with a broad base of people of an ethnic minority. Interaction and free conversation is fundamental to dispelling any myths and stereotypes held. Given Cambridge’s demographic, we have a real chance for people with limited access to one another to interact.

This leads me to the other problem I have: the targeting of messages on racism to the archetypal, white middle-class, cis-gendered, heterosexual male. Racism can be perpetuated by anybody, regardless of identity.

We also cannot shy away from the fact that such labelling is being used as a tool to subjugate voices of dissent. We should want to hear and challenge bigotry, but the hypersensitivity brought about by mislabelling makes such discourse sparse. I am in no way an advocate of anyone purposefully acting to offend, but people should be free to speak their minds without fear of unjustified vilification.

Fundamentally, we do not want to put off applicants because of all this. Three years ago I wouldn’t have applied to this university if I was made to believe that it was especially racist.

There is great work being done by people to combat racial bias; many good people are mentoring applicants and increasing the participation of BME students. Let’s not muddy the waters by targeting dubious symbolism so as not to seem racist, or by creating divisions with empty rhetoric.

BME students have power where once we did not. I, for one, wouldn’t like this to be undermined by tenuous arguments that distract from the greater problems that we face.