Munira Mirza outside City Hall, where she works as an adviser: “Race is no longer the significant disadvantage it is often portrayed to be”
Other articles in Prospect's special feature on the failings of multiculturalism today:
Lindsay Johns on dead white men
Tony Sewell on education
Swaran Singh on psychiatry
Sonya Dyer on the arts
Munira Mirza on her hometown of Oldham
Trevor Phillips, the head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), believes the term “institutional racism” is no longer relevant in Britain. In a speech last year, he stated: “Our nation is changing dramatically. We are becoming more diverse… The trend is clear: the younger you are, the less prejudiced you are.”
The reaction was fierce. The Guardian journalist Joseph Harker wrote angrily: “With levels of black disadvantage seemingly more entrenched than ever, poverty levels high, massive numbers of black boys in jail… now is not the time to risk taking our foot off the pedal. Institutional racism has not gone away, and we can’t afford to let people think that it has.” Phillips’s speech also contributed to the resignation of three EHRC board members.
How is it possible that such divergent views of racism co-exist? On the one hand, there is a real sense that things have improved and that belonging to an ethnic minority no longer means you are stuck at the bottom of the ladder. Yet anti-racist activists point to depressing statistics, such as an apparent rise in racial incidents, and use terms like “institutional racism” to claim that prejudice is pervasive and far more needs to be done. In the US, a similar tension exists. Barack Obama may have become the first black president, but this, it is said, allows many to remain in denial about the true extent of racism.
At the start of the 21st century, Britain is caught in a confusing riptide of anxiety. Of course racism still exists, but things have improved to a point where many ethnic minority Britons do not experience it as a regular feature in their lives. The prejudice and ignorance which older generations encountered after arriving in this country has declined over time and young people today are more comfortable with diversity. To take one example, mixed marriages are increasingly common and widely accepted. But as a society we seem unable to accept this decline in racism for fear of underestimating the problem. It is also difficult to question the recent growth of initiatives tackling racism in the public and private sectors and recognise the unintended problems they have produced.
The Labour government addressed racial inequalities through legislation and a series of sometimes costly programmes (see p34), but its Lib-Con replacement is taking a different approach. In August it said it wanted to stop imposing top-down targets and encourage more transparency and accountability in relation to all kinds of equality initiatives. The coalition has also come to power at a time when a new generation of politicians and commentators are voicing increasing concerns about the old multicultural approach, which labels people according to ethnicity. With tough economic decisions ahead, the government might feel emboldened to look again at the funding of the many projects and bureaucracy that claim to tackle racism.
The following articles are by people who want to change the way in which racism and diversity are discussed in Britain and question the assumptions of some “official anti-racism.” None of them is white and therefore cannot be easily dismissed as ignorant, naive, or unwittingly prejudiced. They write about the effect of anti-racist policies in education, psychiatry and the arts. It is because they care about equality and our common humanity that they wish to challenge some of the assumptions in policymaking today.
The authors make some common points. Race is no longer the significant disadvantage it is often portrayed to be. In a range of areas—educational attainment, career progression, rates of criminality, social mobility—class and socio-economic background are more important. Indeed, a number of ethnic groups in Britain, particularly Indians and Chinese, perform better than average in many areas. Today a higher proportion of people from ethnic minorities enter university than white people and these second and third generation Britons make ambitious career choices.
There remain considerable differences between ethnic groups—in how they are policed, mental health, employment, educational attainment—many of which may have been shaped by racism in the past, but are not necessarily today. Ethnic minorities are more likely to be young, to live in urban areas, to be from low-income families, and to make certain cultural choices.
The writers also point out that while old prejudices have faded, new paternalistic stereotypes are growing. To engage minority students, particularly if they are disruptive and struggling with the mainstream curriculum, teachers are encouraged to focus on “their culture” or “their history.” Black artists are encouraged to explore their identity but are then pigeonholed according to their ethnicity. We may have seen the decline of old racism, but we are witnessing a new kind of racialising.
Perhaps most importantly, we are afraid to discuss race in an honest way, even with our colleagues and friends. The famous Ali G phrase, “Is it cos I is black?” is funny precisely because it hits a nerve. Many of us have seen an innocent remark misinterpreted as racist. Being falsely accused of racism is, at best, unpleasant and at worst, can destroy a career. Meanwhile, some people from ethnic minorities are left unsure whether an opportunity or promotion has been given to them on the basis of merit or box ticking, and can face the quiet resentment of colleagues.
Where did it all start? Following mass immigration from the Commonwealth in the 1960s, anti-racist groups demanded legislation to counter discrimination in the workplace, housing and so on. Successive governments agreed and key victories were won. But in the 1980s, after race riots, the focus shifted. Councils in areas like Bradford and Birmingham set up race equality action plans and racial monitoring. Race activists began to focus not only on discrimination but on culture and identity.
By the 1990s the Tory government began to take these measures seriously. In 1997, new Labour made diversity a major plank in its project to modernise Britain.
There is no doubt that much has improved because of these efforts. No one except the extreme right wishes to return to the past. But it is important to consider newer problems that have emerged in race politics. A watershed moment came in 1999, with the publication of the report on the murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence in southeast London. The Macpherson report exposed the failures and prejudices of the local police, but also popularised a term from American academia: “institutional racism.” Now it seems racism could float freely in organisational structures, beyond the responsibilities of any individual. This moving target meant that entire institutions required moral reconditioning and structural reform: the former head of the BBC, Greg Dyke, declared the organisation to be “hideously white”; former Labour minister David Lammy accused museums and galleries of being “too white.” Kamlesh Patel, former chair of the Mental Health Act Commission, accused the sector of institutional racism.
In this new approach, no one and everyone is guilty of racism. Any unequal outcome is assumed to be the result of prejudice. By this definition, the Football League is institutionally racist against Asians because so few play in it. While the Race Relations Act of 1976 was confined to outlawing direct and indirect discrimination in areas such as education, housing and employment, the 2000 Race Relations Act extended the law to place a positive duty on 43,000 public authorities “to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups.”
This injunction to respect diversity has spawned an industry of behaviour management and control in workplaces, schools, fire stations, hospitals, councils and government departments. Hard-pressed public institutions are required to employ ethnic monitors, diversity trainers and equality impact assessors in order to guard against costly legal action. Even voluntary organisations and civic groups such as churches are drawn into this new orthodoxy. The Race Relations Act 2000 requires schools to refer all “racist incidents” to local authorities, resulting in an estimated 250,000 reports between 2002 and 2009.
Does this heightened awareness of racism help to stamp it out? Quite the opposite. It creates a climate of suspicion and anxiety. Suddenly your colleague is a potential victim of your unwitting racism. A minor slight can be seen as an offence.
Of course, when people work together, there can be tension and disagreement. But policing informal behaviour makes it hard for people to speak freely for fear they will say the wrong thing. Even self-aware individuals can doubt their judgement and start to rely on the diversity trainer to judge if something is offensive.
The victims are often ethnic minorities themselves. In 2004, an investigation into the Metropolitan police found that black and Asian officers were almost twice as likely to be subjected to internal investigations and written warnings. The reason was that “supervisors often lacked the confidence or experience to tackle problems informally with ethnic minority officers, they were wary of doing the wrong thing.” They were therefore more likely to report such cases to the professional standards department which was “over-zealous” in its approach to complaints. Unsurprisingly, ethnic minority officers felt unfairly targeted, although their managers were trying to avoid being racist.
Over the past two decades the emphasis on disadvantage among different groups seems to have entrenched differences and feelings of victimisation. And criticism of “victim politics” is shot down by those who claim it will encourage extremists such as the BNP. Arguably the opposite is true. The BNP has not merely gained support in the era of multicultural policies, it has gained support because of them.
The more we seek to measure racism, the more it seems to grow. Teachers are now required to report incidents of racist abuse among children as young as three to local authorities, resulting in a massive increase of cases and reinforcing the perception that we need an army of experts to manage race relations from cradle to grave.
As we begin a new parliament, now is the time for a constructive and open debate. Of course some people will take issue with the articles that follow—indeed, the writers themselves diverge on certain points. But hopefully this marks the beginning of a new dialogue in which people will share their views, test ideas and tell each other why they may disagree. It is in everyone’s interests to speak openly about these issues.
Other articles in Prospect's special feature on the failings of multiculturalism today:
Lindsay Johns on dead white men
Tony Sewell on education
Swaran Singh on psychiatry
Sonya Dyer on the arts
Munira Mirza on her hometown of Oldham
Other articles in Prospect's special feature on the failings of multiculturalism today:
Lindsay Johns on dead white men
Tony Sewell on education
Swaran Singh on psychiatry
Sonya Dyer on the arts
Munira Mirza on her hometown of Oldham
Trevor Phillips, the head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), believes the term “institutional racism” is no longer relevant in Britain. In a speech last year, he stated: “Our nation is changing dramatically. We are becoming more diverse… The trend is clear: the younger you are, the less prejudiced you are.”
The reaction was fierce. The Guardian journalist Joseph Harker wrote angrily: “With levels of black disadvantage seemingly more entrenched than ever, poverty levels high, massive numbers of black boys in jail… now is not the time to risk taking our foot off the pedal. Institutional racism has not gone away, and we can’t afford to let people think that it has.” Phillips’s speech also contributed to the resignation of three EHRC board members.
How is it possible that such divergent views of racism co-exist? On the one hand, there is a real sense that things have improved and that belonging to an ethnic minority no longer means you are stuck at the bottom of the ladder. Yet anti-racist activists point to depressing statistics, such as an apparent rise in racial incidents, and use terms like “institutional racism” to claim that prejudice is pervasive and far more needs to be done. In the US, a similar tension exists. Barack Obama may have become the first black president, but this, it is said, allows many to remain in denial about the true extent of racism.
At the start of the 21st century, Britain is caught in a confusing riptide of anxiety. Of course racism still exists, but things have improved to a point where many ethnic minority Britons do not experience it as a regular feature in their lives. The prejudice and ignorance which older generations encountered after arriving in this country has declined over time and young people today are more comfortable with diversity. To take one example, mixed marriages are increasingly common and widely accepted. But as a society we seem unable to accept this decline in racism for fear of underestimating the problem. It is also difficult to question the recent growth of initiatives tackling racism in the public and private sectors and recognise the unintended problems they have produced.
The Labour government addressed racial inequalities through legislation and a series of sometimes costly programmes (see p34), but its Lib-Con replacement is taking a different approach. In August it said it wanted to stop imposing top-down targets and encourage more transparency and accountability in relation to all kinds of equality initiatives. The coalition has also come to power at a time when a new generation of politicians and commentators are voicing increasing concerns about the old multicultural approach, which labels people according to ethnicity. With tough economic decisions ahead, the government might feel emboldened to look again at the funding of the many projects and bureaucracy that claim to tackle racism.
The following articles are by people who want to change the way in which racism and diversity are discussed in Britain and question the assumptions of some “official anti-racism.” None of them is white and therefore cannot be easily dismissed as ignorant, naive, or unwittingly prejudiced. They write about the effect of anti-racist policies in education, psychiatry and the arts. It is because they care about equality and our common humanity that they wish to challenge some of the assumptions in policymaking today.
The authors make some common points. Race is no longer the significant disadvantage it is often portrayed to be. In a range of areas—educational attainment, career progression, rates of criminality, social mobility—class and socio-economic background are more important. Indeed, a number of ethnic groups in Britain, particularly Indians and Chinese, perform better than average in many areas. Today a higher proportion of people from ethnic minorities enter university than white people and these second and third generation Britons make ambitious career choices.
There remain considerable differences between ethnic groups—in how they are policed, mental health, employment, educational attainment—many of which may have been shaped by racism in the past, but are not necessarily today. Ethnic minorities are more likely to be young, to live in urban areas, to be from low-income families, and to make certain cultural choices.
The writers also point out that while old prejudices have faded, new paternalistic stereotypes are growing. To engage minority students, particularly if they are disruptive and struggling with the mainstream curriculum, teachers are encouraged to focus on “their culture” or “their history.” Black artists are encouraged to explore their identity but are then pigeonholed according to their ethnicity. We may have seen the decline of old racism, but we are witnessing a new kind of racialising.
Perhaps most importantly, we are afraid to discuss race in an honest way, even with our colleagues and friends. The famous Ali G phrase, “Is it cos I is black?” is funny precisely because it hits a nerve. Many of us have seen an innocent remark misinterpreted as racist. Being falsely accused of racism is, at best, unpleasant and at worst, can destroy a career. Meanwhile, some people from ethnic minorities are left unsure whether an opportunity or promotion has been given to them on the basis of merit or box ticking, and can face the quiet resentment of colleagues.
Where did it all start? Following mass immigration from the Commonwealth in the 1960s, anti-racist groups demanded legislation to counter discrimination in the workplace, housing and so on. Successive governments agreed and key victories were won. But in the 1980s, after race riots, the focus shifted. Councils in areas like Bradford and Birmingham set up race equality action plans and racial monitoring. Race activists began to focus not only on discrimination but on culture and identity.
By the 1990s the Tory government began to take these measures seriously. In 1997, new Labour made diversity a major plank in its project to modernise Britain.
There is no doubt that much has improved because of these efforts. No one except the extreme right wishes to return to the past. But it is important to consider newer problems that have emerged in race politics. A watershed moment came in 1999, with the publication of the report on the murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence in southeast London. The Macpherson report exposed the failures and prejudices of the local police, but also popularised a term from American academia: “institutional racism.” Now it seems racism could float freely in organisational structures, beyond the responsibilities of any individual. This moving target meant that entire institutions required moral reconditioning and structural reform: the former head of the BBC, Greg Dyke, declared the organisation to be “hideously white”; former Labour minister David Lammy accused museums and galleries of being “too white.” Kamlesh Patel, former chair of the Mental Health Act Commission, accused the sector of institutional racism.
In this new approach, no one and everyone is guilty of racism. Any unequal outcome is assumed to be the result of prejudice. By this definition, the Football League is institutionally racist against Asians because so few play in it. While the Race Relations Act of 1976 was confined to outlawing direct and indirect discrimination in areas such as education, housing and employment, the 2000 Race Relations Act extended the law to place a positive duty on 43,000 public authorities “to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups.”
This injunction to respect diversity has spawned an industry of behaviour management and control in workplaces, schools, fire stations, hospitals, councils and government departments. Hard-pressed public institutions are required to employ ethnic monitors, diversity trainers and equality impact assessors in order to guard against costly legal action. Even voluntary organisations and civic groups such as churches are drawn into this new orthodoxy. The Race Relations Act 2000 requires schools to refer all “racist incidents” to local authorities, resulting in an estimated 250,000 reports between 2002 and 2009.
Does this heightened awareness of racism help to stamp it out? Quite the opposite. It creates a climate of suspicion and anxiety. Suddenly your colleague is a potential victim of your unwitting racism. A minor slight can be seen as an offence.
Of course, when people work together, there can be tension and disagreement. But policing informal behaviour makes it hard for people to speak freely for fear they will say the wrong thing. Even self-aware individuals can doubt their judgement and start to rely on the diversity trainer to judge if something is offensive.
The victims are often ethnic minorities themselves. In 2004, an investigation into the Metropolitan police found that black and Asian officers were almost twice as likely to be subjected to internal investigations and written warnings. The reason was that “supervisors often lacked the confidence or experience to tackle problems informally with ethnic minority officers, they were wary of doing the wrong thing.” They were therefore more likely to report such cases to the professional standards department which was “over-zealous” in its approach to complaints. Unsurprisingly, ethnic minority officers felt unfairly targeted, although their managers were trying to avoid being racist.
Over the past two decades the emphasis on disadvantage among different groups seems to have entrenched differences and feelings of victimisation. And criticism of “victim politics” is shot down by those who claim it will encourage extremists such as the BNP. Arguably the opposite is true. The BNP has not merely gained support in the era of multicultural policies, it has gained support because of them.
The more we seek to measure racism, the more it seems to grow. Teachers are now required to report incidents of racist abuse among children as young as three to local authorities, resulting in a massive increase of cases and reinforcing the perception that we need an army of experts to manage race relations from cradle to grave.
As we begin a new parliament, now is the time for a constructive and open debate. Of course some people will take issue with the articles that follow—indeed, the writers themselves diverge on certain points. But hopefully this marks the beginning of a new dialogue in which people will share their views, test ideas and tell each other why they may disagree. It is in everyone’s interests to speak openly about these issues.
Other articles in Prospect's special feature on the failings of multiculturalism today:
Lindsay Johns on dead white men
Tony Sewell on education
Swaran Singh on psychiatry
Sonya Dyer on the arts
Munira Mirza on her hometown of Oldham
