In Michaelmas, my biggest dream came true: (actually, I had already gotten into Cambridge – so we can say second-biggest dream) I got the chance to speak at the Cambridge Union. The motion on the floor was “This House Would Decriminalize Sex Work”. As a woman, I thought “what better topic to audition for!” – albeit, I didn’t have much personal experience regarding the matter.

Leading up to the debate, each aspect of my life felt overshadowed by the Union; I guarantee the walls of King’s library grew tired of watching my ceaseless cycles of researching, rewriting, and repeating. But by Thursday night, I was confident in both my argumentation and my words. The Union floor is one of the most venerable stages at Cambridge, I shuddered at the thought of disrespecting it on my first try.

As the first opposition speaker, I built a current, pragmatic case in favour of criminalisation – highlighting the involvement of prostitution in bolstering the sex trafficking industry, and the responsibility of state governments in addressing socioeconomic instability prior to decriminalizing sex work.

“The easiest response concerned not my arguments, but the colour of my skin”

But by the end of the night, what I remembered most was neither the applause following my speech, nor the opposition winning the debate; it was being told “I know you just want to talk about India” after spending ten minutes speaking extensively of European policy, and specifically mentioning that I came from the United States.

The final proposition speaker remarked that no opposition speaker had provided relevant, Britain-focused data. I raised my hand with a ‘point of information’ to refute that assertion; at which point she halted her speech, glared at me, and stated plainly “I know you want to talk about India […] I’m not talking about India, I’m talking about Britain” – allowing me no time to pose my actual question. A sense of unease came over the chamber, I could see people in the audience exchanging glances; it was clear that I did not want to, in fact, “talk about India”.

The show continued – further into her speech, she spoke of legislation that could help even my “developing countries”! A separate audience member asked why she assumed I wanted nothing else but to talk about India and third world countries – to which she responded that she would not talk about them any longer.

“Even within purely intellectual spaces, race and gender still inflect whose arguments are treated as universal, and whose are seen as anecdotal”

The minute-long interaction uncovered a wound that has been festering for centuries within Western academia – the inherent stigmatisation of the ‘non-white’ – an issue that takes shape far beyond just the walls of the Cambridge Union. A study by Queen Mary University of London found that “women from ethnic minorities are least likely to be offered speaking opportunities at scientific conferences.” The debate reminded me that even though I could get my foot in the door, there would always be an added hurdle I’d have to jump; but my ethnicity shouldn’t be a hurdle in conversations where it plays no part.

For too long has the Western perspective been standardised as ‘objective’, while the rest of us embody the ‘Global South’. Even within purely intellectual spaces, race and gender still inflect whose arguments are treated as universal, and whose are seen as anecdotal. I want to make myself clear – this is not a grievance I hold against the Union or against the University as a whole – my grievance is towards the delegitimisation of ethnic voices throughout Western society, a delegitimisation that creeps into our environments and spaces without us either knowing, or realising. Even the most progressive spaces can unconsciously replicate the hierarchies they claim to challenge, and that is a risk we must all be cognisant to, and aspire to defeat.

I am Indian. I will never deny that. But it is not where I begin, nor is it where I end. I only ask to walk into a room where my words wouldn’t be valued more if spoken behind a mask.