Increasingly, institutions are amplifying work on race equality, in order to engage with movements for Black lives and decolonising. This brings universities into relations with individual and communal issues of whiteness, white fragility and privilege, double and false consciousness, and behavioural code switching. Inside formal structures, built upon cultures and practices that have historical and material legitimacy, engaging with such issues is challenging. The tendency is to engage in formal accreditation, managed through engagement with established methodologies, risk management practices and data reporting. However, this article argues that the dominant articulation of the institution, which has its own inertia, which reinforces whiteness and dissipates radical energy, needs to be readdressed in projects of decolonising. This situates the communal work of the institution against the development of authentic relationships as a movement of dignity.

The use of face masks and coverings has been a central component of efforts to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and has been legally mandated in some countries. Most academic studies to date, however, have focussed primarily on its effectiveness in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, largely neglecting the social dimensions of mask mandates. In this narrative interview-based study, we consider experiences of face masks, with a particular focus on groups considered to be at a potential disadvantage from compulsory masking. Drawing on 40 telephone, video-call and e-mail interviews, we highlight the impact of inconsistent communication and the notion of mask wearing as an act of altruism on participants' experiences. In particular, we show how intolerance towards individuals who did not wear masks could result in stigma and exclusion, regardless of the legitimacy of their reasons. We suggest that more is needed to mitigate the 'dark side' of discourses of collective effort and altruism at a time of societal stress and fracture, and to account for the needs and interests of groups for whom compulsory masking may result in further marginalisation.

Introduction A range of nonpharmaceutical public health interventions has been introduced in many countries following the rapid spread of Covid‐19 since 2020, including recommendations or mandates for the use of face masks or coverings in the community. While the effectiveness of face masks in reducing Covid‐19 transmission has been extensively discussed, scant attention has been paid to the lived experience of those wearing face masks. Method Drawing on 40 narrative interviews with a purposive sample of people in the United Kingdom, with a particular focus on marginalised and minoritized groups, our paper explores experiences of face mask use during the pandemic. Results We find that face masks have a range of societal, health and safety impacts, and prompted positive and negative emotional responses for users. We map our findings onto Lorenc and Oliver's framework for intervention risks. We suggest that qualitative data offer particular insights into the experiences of public health interventions, allowing the potential downsides and risks of interventions to be more fully considered and informing public health policies that might avoid inadvertent harm, particularly towards marginalised groups. Patient or Public Contribution The study primarily involved members of the public in the conduct of the research, namely through participation in interviews (email and telephone). The conception for the study involved extensive discussions on social media with a range of people, and we received input and ideas from presentations we delivered on the preliminary analysis.

Increasingly, institutions are amplifying work on race equality, in order to engage with movements for Black lives and decolonising. This brings universities into relations with individual and communal issues of whiteness, white fragility and privilege, double and false consciousness, and behavioural code switching. Inside formal structures, built upon cultures and practices that have historical and material legitimacy, engaging with such issues is challenging. The tendency is to engage in formal accreditation, managed through engagement with established methodologies, risk management practices and data reporting. However, this article argues that the dominant articulation of the institution, which has its own inertia, which reinforces whiteness and dissipates radical energy, needs to be readdressed in projects of decolonising. This situates the communal work of the institution against the development of authentic relationships as a movement of dignity.

No abstract